BV 

813 

.H67 


JOHN  HORSCH 


.  -^  OF  Pl.<^ 


BV  813  .H67 

Horsch,  John,  1867-1941 

Infant  baptism 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


'"OBlUklll. 


INFANT  BAPTISM 

Its  Origin  Among  Protestants 

and 

The  Arguments  Advanced  For  and  Against  It 


JOHN^HORSCH 

Author    of    "A    Short    History    of    Christianity,"    "Menno    Simons,    his 
Life,    Labors    and    Teachings."    etc. 


It  is  impossible  to  destroy  the  truth;  and  if  for  a  long 
time  it  be  apprehended^  scourged^  crowned  with  thorns, 
crucified,  and  layed  in  the  tomb,  it  will  on  the  third  day 
rise  victoriously  from  the  grave  and  reign  and  triumph  for- 
ever. —  Balthasar  Hubmaier. 


Price :     Paper    Covers,    40    cents ;     Cloth    Covers,    75    cents. 


Published    by    the    Author 
SCOTTDALE,   PENNSYLVANIA 
1917 


COPYRIGHT,    19ir,    BY    JOHN    HORSCH 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

The  contents  of  this  book  were  a  part  of  a 
manuscript  on  the  history  of  the  Anabaptists  which 
is  in  preparation.  Since  the  origin  of  infant  baptism 
among  Protestants  is  a  neglected  subject  on  which 
probably  no  treatise  exists,  these  chapters,  having 
been  adapted  for  the  present  book,  are  published 
separately. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION       9 

I 

THE  LUTHERAN  REFORMERS'  EARLIER 
TEACHING    ON    BAPTISM    AND    ITS 

MEANING        13 

II 
ZWINGLI    RECOGNIZES    INFANT    BAP- 
TISM AS  UNSCRIPTURAL 19 

III 
THE   TESTIMONY   OF  THE   ZWINGLIAN 
REFORMERS  AT  BASEL,  STRASBURG 

AND  OTHER  PLACES 23 

IV 
THE  LEADING  REFORMERS   DISCARD 
THEIR    FORMER    POSITION    RE- 
GARDING   THE    AUTHORITY    OF 

THE    SCRIPTURES 29 

V 
LUTHER'S    AND    MELANCHTHON'S    DE- 
FENCE  OF   INFANT   BAPTISM    ...     38 

VI 
WHY  ZWINGLI   DEFENDED   INFANT 

BAPTISM 49 

VII 
ZWINGLPS   PUBLIC  DEBATES   WITH 

ANABAPTISTS 52 

VIII 
ZWINGLI'S    ARGUMENTS    FOR    INFANT 


8  INFANT  BAPTISM 

BAPTISM    AS    SET    FORTH    IN    HIS 

WRITINGS 60 

IX 
OBALTHASAR     HUBMAIER    VS.     ULRICH 

ZWINGLI 69 

X 
A  DISCUSSION  ON  BAPTISM  BETWEEN 

HUBMAIER  AND  ZWINGLI     ....    79 

XI 
THE    POSITION   OF    (ECOLAMPAD   AND 
BUCER  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM   ...    91 

XII 
A  SINGULAR  ARGUMENT  FOR  INFANT 

BAPTISM 96 

XIII 
A  DIALOGUE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  BE- 
TWEEN  HUBMAIER  AND   (ECOLAM- 
PAD      104 

XIV 
MENNO  SIMONS  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM     110 

XV 
JOHN  CALVIN  AND  JOHN  WESLEY  ON 

INFANT    BAPTISM 116 

XVI 
THE    GREAT    CONTROVERSY    ON    BAP- 
TISM AND  ITS  MEANING 119 

NOTES       123 

DICTIONARY 147 

INDEX        153 


INTRODUCTION 

The  Roman   Catholic  Church,  it  is  well  known, 
does  not  accept  the  Scriptures  as  the  final  authority 
in   matters   of    faith   and   practice;    the   church    (the 
pope)  is  held  to  be  a  higher  authority  than  the  Scrip- 
tures,  hence   it   is   not   inconsistent   with   the    funda- 
mental principles  of  this  church  to  advocate  doctrines 
that    are    not    based    on    Scripture.      The    Protestant 
churches,  on  the  other  hand,  are  generally  supposed 
to  consider  the  Scriptures  the  sole  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  and  to  reject  that  which  is  not  founded  on 
Scripture.      Nevertheless   it   is   generally   known   that 
Protestant     denominations     defend     infant     baptism, 
though  this  practice  is  never  mentioned  in  Scripture 
and  prominent  historians  of  the   said  denominations 
agree   in   the  testimony   that   the   baptism   of   infants 
was   foreign  to  the  thought  of  the  apostolic  church 
and  was  first  introduced  more  than  a  century  after 
the  founding  of  the  church. 

How,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  is  it  to  be  ac- 
counted for  that  Protestant  denominations  defend 
and  practice  infant  baptism,  or,  to  state  the  question 
in  other  words,  why  did  the  leading  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  viz.  Martin  Luther,  Ulrich  Zwingli 


10  INFANT  BAPTISM 

and  John  Calvin,  not  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
apostolic  church  on  this  important  point?  Why  did 
they  not  discard  the  practice  of  baptizing  the  un- 
conscious infants? 

Martin  Luther  (in  Germany)  and  Ulrich  Zwingli 
(in  Switzerland),  in  the  first  period  of  their  labors 
as  reformers,  maintained  opinions  which  are  irrecon- 
cilable   with    their   later   defense    of    infant   baptism. 

The  Lutheran  reformers,  in  their  first  period, 
advocated  the  Voluntary  Principle ;  they  taught 
emphatically  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rightful 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  and  held 
that  "the  sacraments  are  signs  and  seals  which  do 
nothing  of  themselves."  After  a  few  years  of 
reformatory  endeavors,  however,  Luther  and  his 
friends  again  accepted  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 
through  baptism.  They  believed  the  unbaptized  in- 
fants to  be  lost  and  hence  could  not  dispense  with 
infant  baptism.  But  in  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  for  which  they  stood,  they 
found  it  not  easy  to  maintain  the  teaching  that 
infants  are  saved  through  the  rite  of  baptism.  They 
resorted  to  unheard-of  arguments  for  the  baptism  of 
infants.  At  the  time  when  they  again  accepted  the 
opinion  of  the  saving  efficacy  of  the  ordinances,  they 
also  modified  and  changed  their  position  on  the 
Voluntary  Principle  and  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

Ulrich  Zwingli  at  first  openly  questioned  the 
Roman  Catholic  usage  of  baptism,  but  after  he  came 


INTRODUCTION  11 

to  realize  that  the  practice  of  beHevers'  baptism 
would  mean  the  organization  of  an  independent 
church  and  the  separation  of  church  and  state,  in 
other  words,  when  he  recognized  that  faith-baptism 
would  make  an  exclusive  state-church  impossible,  he 
devoted  much  effort  to  the  defense  of  infant  baptism. 
Zwingli  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic  view  of  the 
magic  effect  of  the  sacraments.  He  based  his  main- 
tenance of  the  baptism  of  infants  not  so  much  on 
principle  as  on  expediency. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    LUTHERAN    REFORMERS'    EARLIER 

TEACHING    ON    BAPTISM    AND 

ITS   MEANING 

In  the  earlier  years  of  his  reformatory  labors 
Luther  often  expressed  himself  in  a  way  which  can 
not  be  harmonized  with  his  later  teaching  on  the 
sacraments  and  their  supposed  magic  effects.  In  his 
Sermon  on  Baptism,  published  in  1519,  he  gives  this 
scriptural  definition :  "Baptism  is  an  outward  sign 
or  watchword  which  distinguishes  us  from  all  un- 
baptized  men  and  marks  us  a  people  of  Christ,  our 
leader,  under  whose  banner  we  continually  strive 
against  sin."^  In  this  sermon  Luther  describes  bap- 
tism further  as  ''a  covenant  or  vow."     He  says : 

'Therefore  it  is  true  that  there  is  no  higher^ 
better,  greater  vow  than  the  vow  of  baptism,  for 
nothing  greater  can  be  vowed  than  to  shun  all  sin,  to 
die  to  it"  etc.  *'The  sacrament  or  sign  of  baptism  is 
quickly  administered,  as  we  see  before  our  eyes ;  but 
the  meaning,  the  spiritual  baptism,  the  drowning  of 
sin,  continues  while  we  Hve."  "In  no  other  sense  is 
man  made  pure  in  baptism,  than  that  a  beginning  is 
made  toward  this  end,  and  of  this  he  has    [in  bap- 


14  INFANT  BAPTISM 

tism]  a  sign  and  covenant  and  he  is  to  become  more 
and  more  pure."^ 

The  doctrine  of  regeneration  through  baptism  is 
expressly  denied  in  this  sermon.  Unless  that  which 
is  symbolized  in  baptism  is  also  carried  out  in  prac- 
tical life,  says  Luther,  "there  remains  the  old  man, 
as  formerly."^ 

In  his  famous  book  On  the  Babylonish  Captivity 
of  the  Church  (1520)  Luther  defends  the  view  that 
faith  saves  without  baptism,  and  somewhat  later  he 
says  in  a  sermon :  "Baptism  is  nothing  more  than  an 
outward  sign,  instituted  and  commanded  by  Christ  in 
order  to  bring  to  our  mind  the  divine  promise."*  In 
March,  1521,  Luther  wrote: 

"This  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  Christ, 
Mark  16:16,^  'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved.'  He  maketh  faith  to  precede  baptism.  For 
where  faith  is  not  in  evidence,  baptism  availeth  not, 
as  he  himself  says  afterward :  He  that  beHeveth  not 
shall  be  condemned,  although  he  may  be  baptized. 
For  not  baptism  but  faith  [which  is  necessary]  for 
t)aptism  saves.  Therefore  we  read  Acts  8:37  that 
Saint  Philip  would  not  baptize  the  Eunuch  before  he 
had  asked  him  whether  he  believed.  And  we  see 
daily  that  in  all  the  world,  wherever  baptism  is  per- 
formed, the  infant,  or  the  godfathers  in  his  stead,  is 
asked  whether  he  believes,  and  on  the  faith  and  con- 
fession [of  the  godfathers]  baptism  is  administered 
[to  the  infant]. 

"Further  Saint  Paul  says,  Rom.  10:8,  to  be 
saved  it  is  necessary  to  believe  from  the  heart.  He 
does  not  say  it  is  required  to  receive  the  sacraments, 
for  without  actually  receiving  the  sacraments  (if  they 


MELANCHTHON'S   EARLIER    TEACHING     15 

are  not  despised)  one  may  be  saved  through  faith. 
And  without  faith  no  sacrament  is  of  any  avail. 
Without  faith  the  sacraments  are  indeed  condemning 
and  detrimental.  For  this  reason  Paul  writes,  Rom. 
4:3,  that  Abraham  believed  God  or  trusted  him  and 
this  faith  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness  or 
salvation,  as  was  previously  written  in  Gen.  15:6. 
And  it  was  written  that  we  should  know  that  no 
other  means  will  save  and  justify  than  alone  faith 
without  which  no  one  may  approach  God,  no  one 
may  obtain  his  grace. "*^ 

Philip  Melanchthon,  the  most  prominent  co- 
worker with  Martin  Luther,  in  his  Loci  Communes 
or  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  of   1521,  says: 

"The  assertion  that  the  sacraments  of  the  New 
Testament  have  the  virtue  to  justify  the  people,  as 
they  [the  Roman  Catholic  theologians]  say,  is  an 
obvious  error;  for  faith  alone  justifies. — What  others 
speak  of  as  sacraments,  I  name  signs,  or  if  you 
prefer,  sacramental  signs. — The  signs  do  not  justify^ 
as  Saint  Paul  says :  'Circumcision  availeth  nothing/ 
So  also  baptism  availeth  nothing  and  partaking  of 
the  holy,  most  reverend  sacrament  or  participation 
of  the  table  of  the  Lord  availeth  nothing,  but  they 
are  testimonies  and  signs  or  seals  and  signets  of  the 
gracious,  kind  will  of  God  toward  us ;  through  which 
signs  your  conscience  is  assured,  if  it  have  doubts 
concerning  the  grace  and  loving  kindness  of  God."^ — 
The  sacraments  are  signs  of  the  divine  promises 
which  signs  do  nothing  of  themselves,  but  are  a  sort 
of  mark,  surety,  or  pledge  by  which  we  keep  con- 
stantly in  mind  that  the  promises  are  effectual."^ 

The  Lutheran  reformers  of  Nuremberg,  Andreas 
Osiander,    Dominicus    Sleupner    and    Thomas    Vena- 


16  INFANT  BAPTISM 

torius,  advocated  similar  principles.  Shortly  before 
the  beginning  of  the  Anabaptist  movement,  namely  in 
1524,  they  published  a  book  in  which  they  defined  the 
sacraments  as  "outward  symbols  which  beautifully 
set  forth  the  nature  and  character  of  evangelical 
doctrine."  On  baptism  they  say:  "He  who  consents 
to  the  death  of  the  old  man,  has  already  in  part 
mortified  his  old  life.  And  if  he  comes  to  baptism 
with  this  conviction,  it  is  as  if  he  were  buried.  Now 
where  such  a  mind  is  associated  with  baptism,  much 
of  the  sinful  desire  has  without  doubt  already 
ceased."^  The  authors  of  this  book  do  not  attempt 
to  harmonize  the  practice  of  baptizing  the  infants 
with  this  view  of  bapism. 

Perhaps  at  no  other  place  the  Lutherans  favored 
the  abolition  of  infant  baptism  to  greater  extent  than 
at  Nordlingen  in  Swabia.  Theobald  Billican,  the 
Lutheran  reformer  of  this  city,  wrote  in  1525  in  a 
book  defending  the  changes  which  had  been  recently 
introduced  in  the  church :  "We  baptize  infants  and 
we  also  baptize  adults.  We  comply  with  the  wishes 
of  those  who  do  not  desire  to  have  their  infants 
baptized,  but  we  present  them  to  Christ  our  Mediator 
and  Redeemer  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  the 
prayer  of  the  church.  The  Council  of  Carthage  [in 
the  fifth  century]  has  decided  that  it  shall  be  left  to 
the  liberty  of  every  one  whether  or  not  he  would 
have  infants  baptized.  This  is  also  our  position. "^^ 
This  statement  shows  that  the  Lutherans  of  Nord- 
lingen at  that  time  did  not   defend   the  practice   of 


MELANCHTHON'S  WAVERING  ATTITUDE  17 

infant  baptism,  but  accepted  its  abandonment  as 
orthodox.  A  similar  position  on  the  point  in  question 
was  taken  by  the  Lutheran  preachers  at  Liegnitz  in 
Silesia. 

Very  soon  the  Lutheran  reformers  encountered 
men  who  would  not  only  omit  infant  baptism,  but  re- 
jected it  outright  as  unscriptural.  These  men  drew  the 
practical  consequences  of  the  teaching  that  "baptism 
is  nothing  more  than  an  outward  sign."^^  If  it  be 
correct,  they  said,  that  the  purpose  of  the  "signs"  or 
ordinances  is  to  strengthen  the  faith,  then  infants  are 
not  proper  subjects  for  baptism  and  to  baptize  them 
on  the  faith  of  the  church  or  of  the  godfathers  is  an 
unscriptural  usage.  Melanchthon  frankly  confessed 
that  he  was  unable  to  meet  the  conclusions  and  argu- 
ments of  these  men.  It  seemed  to  him  that  their 
rejection  of  infant  baptism  was  not  unorthodox.  On 
January  1,  1522,  he  wrote  to  Spalatin  informing  him 
that  the  men  who  had  come  to  Wittenberg  from 
Zwickau  held  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  unscrip- 
tural and  that  the  faith  of  the  church  will  not  suffice 
to  make  the  infants  proper  subjects  for  baptism. 
Melanchthon  continues  his  letter  as  follows : 

"These  two  opinions  [namely  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  unjustifiable  and  that  the  faith  of  the  church 
is  no  acceptable  substitute  for  the  faith  of  the  one 
who  is  to  be  baptized]  are  verily  not  to  be  despised 
and  will  probably  cause  difficulty  to  people  more 
learned  than  I,  as  well  as  to  the  masses.  Well,  I 
expected  that  the  devil  would  touch  us  at  a  weak 
place.     Augustine  and  many  others  of  his  time  have 


18  INFANT  BAPTISM 

disputed  concerning  infant  baptism  and  have  accom- 
plished little;  and  he  bases  his  argument  [for  infant 
baptism]  upon  original  sin  [which  is  to  be  effaced 
through  baptism]  and  upon  the  general  usage.  Doc- 
tor Martin  [Luther]  knows  quite  well  what  this 
question  really  means.  And,  in  short,  this  is  a  matter 
of  anxiety  (Sorge)  to  me,  as  it  also  has  formerly 
been. — Not  without  cause,  it  seems  to  me,  has  this 
question  of  baptism  moved  me."^^ 


CHAPTER  II 

ZWINGLI    RECOGNIZES    INFANT   BAPTISM 
AS  UNSCRIPTURAL 

Ulrich  Zwingli,  in  the  first  period  of  his  refor- 
matory labors,  frankly  questioned  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism.  He  wrote  in  July,  1523,  in  his 
Exposition  of  the  Articles   (article  eighteen)  : 

''The  rite  of  Confirmation  became  customary 
only  after  a  general  beginning  had  been  made  to 
baptize  the  children  in  their  infancy,  or  immediately 
after  birth.  Confirmation  was  introduced  that  the 
faith  which  was  confessed  for  them  by  their  fathers 
and  mothers  through  their  godfathers  might  not  be 
unknown  to  them  [since  they  were  instructed  pre- 
vious to  confirmation].  Although  I  know,  as  the 
ancients  indicate,  that  from  the  earliest  times  infants 
were  sometimes  baptized,  it  was  nevertheless  not  so 
common  a  custom  as  it  is  in  our  time,  but  the  general 
practice  was,  as  soon  as  they  arrived  at  the  age  of 
reason,  to  form  them  into  classes  for  instruction  in 
the  word  of  salvation  (hence  they  were  called 
catechumens,  i.  e.,  persons  under  instruction)  and 
when  they  steadfastly  believed  in  their  hearts  and 
confessed   with  their  mouths,   they  were  baptized. "^^ 

Balthasar  Hubmaier,  one  of  the  spokesmen  of 
the  Anabaptists,  wrote  in  his  reply  to  Zwingli's  Book 
on  Baptism: 


20  INFANT  BAPTISM 

"In  the  year  1523,  about  the  day  of  Philip  and 
James  [May  1],  I  have  conferred  with  you  [Zwingli] 
on  the  moat  of  Zurich  upon  the  Scriptures  which 
treat  on  baptism.  Then  and  there  you  agreed  with 
me  in  the  opinion  that  children  should  not  be  bap- 
tized before  they  were  instructed  in  the  faith ;  you 
said,  this  was  the  custom  in  times  of  yore,  therefore 
such  were  called  catechumens.  You  promised  to 
mention  this  in  your  forthcoming  book,  as  you  also 
did  in  article  XVIII  on  Confirmation.  Any  one  can 
read  it  and  find  your  opinion  clearly  expressed. 
Sebastian  Ruckensberger  of  St.  Gall,  at  that  time 
prior  of  the  cloister  Sion  at  Klingnau,  was  present."^* 

To  his  friend  Thomas  Wyttenbach  Zwingli 
wrote  on  June  15,  1523:  "It  is  useless  to  wash  a 
thousand  times  in  the  baptismal  water  him  who  does 
not  beheve."^^  In  a  letter  to  Fridolin  Lindauer  in 
Bremgarten  he  said,  October  20,  1524:  "God  has 
commanded  to  baptize  those  who  have  previously 
believed. "^^  "More  and  more  Zwingli  looked  upon 
baptism  as  an  act  for  believers,"  says  the  Zwinglian 
theologian  Usteri,  "namely  an  act  of  confession  and 
of  acceptance  of  definite  duty."^'^ 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Zwingli,  even  after  he 
had  decided  that  infant  baptism  must  not  be  aban- 
doned, did  not  hold  that  this  practice  is  commanded 
in  Scripture.  He  says  in  December,  1524:  "To  come 
to  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  observe  that  those 
who  would  not  baptize  them  have  no  clear  scriptural 
commandment  that  infants  should  not  be  baptized, 
and  again,  those  who  baptize  them  have  no  cleai 
Scripture  which  commands  that  they  should  be  bap- 


ZWINGLI  OPPOSES  INFANT  BAPTISM    21 

tized. — ^So  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  neither  a 
command  nor  a  prohibition  of  infant  baptism."" 
Zwingli's  defence  of  the  practice  of  the  state-church 
was  based  on  the  supposition  that  the  baptism  of 
infants  is  not  forbidden  in  Scripture. 

We  have  ZwingH's  own  testimony  to  the  effect 
that  for  some  time  he  openly  favored  the  aboHtion  of 
infant  baptism.  He  says  in  1525:  ''When  we^^  readily 
accepted  the  opinion  that  the  signs  [ordinances] 
strengthen  the  faith,  we  naturally  contradicted  infant 
baptism;  for  baptism  can  not  strengthen  the  faith  in 
the  instance  of  infants,  for  they  can  not  believe.  For 
the  error  misled  me  also  some  years  ago  that  I 
thought  it  would  be  much  better  to  baptize  children 
after  they  have  arrived  at  a  good  age."^°  Hubmaier, 
commenting  on  this  statement  of  Zwingli,  says :  "Yes, 
this  was  your  opinion ;  you  have  set  forth  this  view 
in  writing  and  have  preached  it  from  the  pulpit; 
many  hundreds  of  people  have  heard  it  out  of  your 
own  mouth."^^ 

Conrad  Grebel,  the  foremost  leader  of  the  Swiss 
Anabaptists,  wrote  in  December,  1524,  to  the  Council 
of  Zurich :  "I  am  convinced  that  Zwingli  is  of  the 
same  opinion  concerning  baptism  as  we,  and  I  do  not 
understand  for  what  reason  he  does  not  confess  it. 
But  this  I  know  with  certainty,  if  only  God's  Word 
is  permitted  to  prevail,  no  one  may  disprove  this 
opinion. "22  "I  do  not  know,  what  to  make  of  it,"  says 
Hans  Hottinger  concerning  Zwingli,  "today  he  preach- 
es one  thing  and  tomorrow  he  recants  it.     And  par- 


22  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ticularly  he  has  preached  years  ago  that  the  infants 
should  not  be  baptized,  but  now  he  says,  they  should 
be  baptized. "^^  A  Zwinglian  chronicler  of  Zurich  also 
testifies  that  Zwingli  preached  against  infant  bap- 
tism.2* 

'*It  is  an  altogether  true  and  therefore  very 
sincere  confession,"  says  August  Baur,  the  author  of 
the  most  notable  work  on  the  Zwinglian  theology, 
"which  Zwingli  makes  in  his  Book  on  Baptism,  when 
he  says,  the  error  misled  him  some  years  ago  that 
he  believed,  it  were  far  better  to  abandon  infant 
baptism,"25  and  Usteri  says:  ''Zwingh  does  not  leave 
us  in  the  dark  concerning  the  position  which  he  first 
took  on  the  question  of  infant  baptism/'^s  ^^ 
Hadorn  also  testifies  that  Zwingli,  and  other  reform- 
ers had  at  first  similar  opinions  about  infant  baptism 
as  those  who  later  became  the  leaders  of  the  Ana- 
baptists.^^ Another  Zwinglian  historian  says:  "The 
abolition  of  the  baptism  of  new-born  children  was 
without  any  doubt  an  altogether  consequential  point 
in  the  program  of  the  earlier  theology  of  Zwingli."28 
This  is  clear  testimony  to  corroborate  the  statement 
of  the  Moravian  Anabaptist  chronicler  who  informs 
us  that  Ulrich  Zwingli,  together  with  Conrad  Grebel 
recognized  infant  baptism  as  uncalled  for,  but  some- 
what later,  when  Grebel  and  Mantz  urged  the  neces- 
sity of  faith-baptism,  Zwingli  would  not  consent  to 
it.29 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    TESTIMONY     OF    THE     ZWINGLIAN 

REFORMERS    AT    BASEL,    STRASBURG 

AND  OTHER  PLACES 

John  CEcolampad,  the  Zwinglian  reformer  of 
Basel,  was  at  one  with  Zwingli's  earUer  opinion  on 
infant  baptism.  In  his  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  which  was  published  in  the  early  autumn 
of  1524  he  wrote:  "But  the  Lord,  when  he  says  in 
the  last  chapter  of  Mark :  He  who  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  etc.,  demands  of  us  confession  through 
baptism  and  requires  unconditional  faith.  For  he 
who  would  not  be  baptized,  will  neither  confess 
Christ."3« 

In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year,  at  the  time  of 
Thomas  Miinzer's  visit  in  Basel,  CEcolampad  would 
not  defend  infant  baptism ;  he  held  it  an  open  ques- 
tion.^^  On  November  21,  1524,  he  wrote  to  Zwingli 
that  he  was  not  disinclined  to  accept  Carlstadt's  argu- 
ments against  infant  baptism,  although  he  had  not 
entirely  discarded  the  doctrine  of  the  church-father 
Augustine  that  baptism  is  the  means  of  cleansing 
from  original  sin.^^ 

CEcolampad,  in  a  letter  to  Balthasar  Hubmaier, 


24  INFANT  BAPTISM 

gave  expression  to  his  attitude  on  the  question  of 
infant  baptism.  Hubmaier  wrote  to  him  on  January 
17,  1525  (before  he  united  with  the  Anabaptists),  in- 
forming him  that  he  no  longer  taught  infant  baptism 
nor  administered  baptism  to  infants,  except  when 
parents  demanded  it,  in  which  instance  he  was  wilHng 
*'to  be  weak  with  the  weak."  He  further  said  that 
instead  of  infant  baptism  he  had  introduced  the 
pubhc  consecration  of  infants. ^^  To  this  letter 
(Ecolampad  replied  praising  openly  the  position  of 
Hubmaier  on  the  question  of  baptism.  'The  rite 
which  you  observe  in  the  church  [the  consecration  of 
infants,  instead  of  baptism]"  he  wrote  in  his  reply, 
''pleases  me  very  much ;  may  it  be  generally  ap- 
approved."^*  But  upon  his  request  he  received  in- 
struction from  Zwingli  on  the  point  in  question  and 
decided  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  In  a  letter  to 
William  Farel,  dated  February  6,  1525,  CEcolampad 
complains  that  many  would  not  accept  his  arguments 
for  this  practice.^^ 

The  Zwinglian  reformers  of  Strasburg,  Martin 
Bucer  and  Wolfgang  Capito,  for  a  considerable 
period  did  not  insist  on  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Capito  wrote  in  the  autumn  of  1524:  "We  do 
not  make  it  a  question  at  what  time  or  at  what  age 
children  should  be  baptized. — Where  we  have  no 
clear  word  of  Scripture,  we  do  not  inquire  further."^* 
To  ZwingH  he  wrote  on  December  31,  1524:  "The 
question  of  infant  baptism  we  shall  investigate  more 


BAPTISM  IN  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH      25 


thoroughly     .     .     .     We   shall  endeavor  to  go  hand 
in  hand  with  you  in  this  matter."'^ 

Martin  Bucer  says  in  December  of  the  same 
year:  "In  the  primitive  church  no  one  was  baptized 
and  received  into  the  church,  except  those  who  fully 
surrendered  themselves  to  Christ's  word."  "Among 
the  ancient  the  confession  of  sin  preceded  baptism, 
for  as  a  rule  those  who  had  come  to  an  age  of  under- 
standing were  baptized,  and  not  the  infants."  He 
held  that  baptism  should  be  considered  "free,"  hence 
the  baptism  of  infants  would  not  be  invalid.  "But 
if  some  one  would  desire  to  put  off  baptism  [instead 
of  baptizing  the  infantsi]  and  if  he  could  do  this 
without  destroying  the  love  and  unity  of  those  among 
whom  he  lives,  we  would  not  for  this  cause  withdraw 
from  him  or  condemn  him."^®  To  Martin  Luther  he 
wrote  in  December  of  the  year  1524: 

"Although  the  baptism  of  adults  alone  would 
probably  be  far  more  in  accord  with  the  practice  of 
the  early  church  and  also  with  the  teachings  of 
Scripture  which  order  that  those  who  know  Christ 
should  be  baptized,  confessing  Christ  in  baptism  after 
they  have  been  taught  the  doctrine  of  godUness;  and 
by  baptizing  adults  only  would  also  be  destroyed  a 
deceptive  trust  in  baptism  ....  nevertheless, 
for  the  sake  of  general  harmony  we  should  be  willing 
to  yield  the  point  to  this  extent  that  we  would  baptize 
the  infants,  provided  that  when  those  whom  we  have 
baptized  reach  an  age  enabling  them  to  comprehend 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  arrangements  should  be  made 
for  instructing  them  in  religion. "^^ 
These  sentences  show  that  Bucer  recognized  the  un- 


26  INFANT  BAPTISM 

scripturalness    of    infant    baptism    but    maintained    it 
for  reasons  of  expediency. 

Joachim  von  Watt,  called  Vadian,  the  leading 
Zwinglian  of  St.  Gall,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
his  biographer,  "was  in  fact  [in  his  earHer  years] 
not  disinclined  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists; 
in  common  with  them  he  held  infant  baptism  to  be 
an  abuse. "^°  As  late  as  in  May,  1525,  Conrad  Grebel 
(his  brother-in-law)  says,  Vadian  assented  to  the 
leading  Anabaptist  principle.*^  The  reasons  which 
led  him  finally  to  oppose  the  Anabaptists,  says  Staub. 
are  to  be  found  in  the  ecclesio-political  domain  rather 
than  the  field  of  doctrine.*^  Sebastian  Hofmeister  of 
Schafifhausen,  the  friend  of  Zwingli,  according  to  the 
altogether  trustworthy  testimony  of  the  Council  of 
Schaf¥hausen,  publicly  defended  believers'  baptism; 
he  preached :  ''Baptism,  if  administered  to  the  in- 
fants, is  useless  and  out  of  place. "*^  This  agrees 
with  Hubmaier's  testimony,  who  says :  "Doctor  Se- 
bastian wrote  to  me  in  particular  that  he  stood  in 
SchafThausen  publicly  before  the  Council  and  assert- 
ed that  Master  Ulrich  [Zwingirj  erred  in  point  of 
infant  baptism,  and  the  said  doctor  would  not  have 
his  own  child  baptized,  and  thus  he  [Hubmaier]  also 
was  led  to  decide  against  infant  baptism."**  Berthold 
Haller  of  Bern  asked  Zwingli  in  November,  1525,  to 
warn  Hofmeister  of  Anabaptism.*^ 

It  has  been  generally  asserted  that  the  opposition 
to  infant  baptism  in  Switzerland  and  the  subsequent 


OPPOSITION  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM      27 

practice  of  believers'  baptism  can  be  traced  to  the 
influence  of  Thomas  Miinzer,  the  Saxon  enthusiast.*^ 
The  fact  has  been  overlooked  that,  if  this  supposition 
were  correct,  Zwingli  also  must  have  been  influenced 
by  Miinzer,  for  he  agreed  with  those  who  considered 
infant  baptism  unscriptural. 

The  movement  for  the  abolishment  of  infant 
baptism  among  the  Zwinglians  in  Switzerland  ante- 
dates their  acquaintance  with  Miinzer  and  his  perti- 
nent writings.  As  early  as  the  first  part  of  the  year 
1522  Ulrich  Hugwald  of  Basel,  who  somewhat  later 
accepted  the  office  of  a  professor  in  the  university  of 
that  city,  wrote  a  number  of  theses  in  which  he 
demanded  the  practice  of  baptism  upon  the  confes- 
sion of  faith. ^^  On  July  21,  1523,  Benedict  Burgauer, 
the  leading  minister  of  St.  Gall,  stated  in  a  letter  that 
he  had  encountered  those  who  "would  not  baptize 
infants  that  have  no  faith. "^^  Early  in  1524  Urban 
Rhegius  learned  that  there  were  at  Constance  "those 
who  do  not  desire  to  have  their  children  baptized, 
asserting  that  the  Scriptures  teach  baptism  on  the 
confession  of  faith. "*^  Zwingli's  opposition  to  infant 
baptism,  as  is  evident  from  the  above  quotations 
from  his  writings  (p.  20),  dates  back  to  an  earlier 
time.  Max  Staub,  a  Zwinglian,  says:  "The  current 
against  infant  baptism  was  general  as  early  as  1523. 
It  begins  not  with  [the  Anabaptist^  Roublin,  but 
with  ZwingH."^*^  At  Zollicon,  Basel,  Strasburg  and 
other  places  many  followers  of  Zwingli  decided  a- 
gainst  the  baptism  of  their  own  children  in  infancy. 


2S  INFANT  BAPTISM 

At  Zurich  there  were  instances  in  which  infant  bap- 
tism was  omitted  in  the  early  spring  of  the  year  1524.®^ 
The  earliest  trace  of  Zwingli's  unfavorable  opinion 
on  infant  baptism  dates  back  to  December,  1521, 
when  the  canon  Conrad  Hofmann  of  Zurich  com- 
plained that  he  taught:  "The  unbaptized  infants  are 
not  condemned."*^* 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   LEADING   REFORMERS    DISCARD 
THEIR   FORMER   POSITION   RE- 
GARDING THE  AUTHORITY 
OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

Within  a  few  years  after  the  reformers  ex- 
pressed themselves  unfavorably  on  the  question  of 
infant  baptism,  as  quoted  above,  they  changed  their 
mind  on  this  point  and  became  staunch  defenders  of 
the  baptism  of  infants.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that 
at  the  same  time  they  abandoned  a  principle  which  in 
the  first  period  of  their  reformatory  labors  they  had 
considered  of  the  most  fundamental  importance, 
namely  the  maxim  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  They  now 
accepted  the  view  that  anything  that  is  not  expressly 
forbidden  in  Scripture  may  be  practiced  although  it 
be  without  Scripture  authority :  they  asserted  that 
various  unscriptural  practices  of  the  Roman  CathoHc 
Church  are  not  forbidden  in  Scripture.  They  decided 
that  the  battle  of  the  church  should  be  largely  fought 
by  the  state  and  an  exclusive  state-church  be  estab- 
lished;   hence  they  forsook  their  former  position  on 


30  INFANT  BAPTISM 

the  points  of  religious  liberty  and  infant  baptism. 

In  his  earlier  books  Luther  defended  the  prin- 
ciple that  tradition  or  the  authority  of  the  church  is 
no  adequate  foundation  for  Christan  teaching  and 
practice;  the  word  of  God  alone,  he  pointed  out,  is 
the  rightful  authority  and  everything  that  is  not 
founded  on  the  Scriptures  must  be  abandoned.  In 
1521,  at  the  time  of  his  sojourn  on  the  Wartburg,  he 
wrote  a  book  on  the  mass  in  which  he  says : 

'Whatever  is  ordered  without  God's  Word  is 
not  ordered  of  the  [true]  church,  but  of  the  syna- 
gogue of  Satan  under  the  title  and  name  of  the 
church. — Therefore  the  mad  sophists  and  Papists 
must  do  one  of  two  things:  Let  them  prove  their 
priesthood  by  Scripture,  or  they  must  confess  that 
these  things  are  nothing  but  dissimulations  of  Satan 
and  condemned  idols.  For  whatever  is  not  founded 
on  the  Scriptures  is  certainly  from  the  devil  himself. 
— I  shall  here  again  state  my  fundamental  principle 
which  shall  be  accepted  of  all  Christians :  That  every- 
thing which  is  done  without  Scripture,  especially  in 
religious  matters,  is  of  the  devil. "^^ 

These  sentences,  to  which  could  be  added  many 
others  of  similar  import  from  his  writings,  show  that 
Luther  in  his  earlier  period  emphatically  defended 
the  principle  that  the  teachings  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  are  acceptable  only  in  so  far  as  they  are 
founded  on  the  Scriptures.  He  wrote  these  sen- 
tences in  November,  1521.  Shortly  afterwards  he 
advanced  a  quite  different  view  on  the  question  of 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  On  January  13, 
1522,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Melanchthon  in  which  he 


LUTHER'S  STATE-CHURCHISM  31 

-defended  the  opinion  that  Scripture  authority  is  not 
required  for  the  teaching  and  practice  of  the  church 
and  that  infant  baptism  is  an  orthodox  practice. 
(Compare  p.  38).  He  falls  back  in  this  letter  to 
the  position  held  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and 
asserts  that  "what  is  not  contrary  to  Scripture  is  for 
Scripture  and  Scripture  is  for  it."^*  This  is  but 
another  way  of  saying  that  Scripture  authority  is  not 
necessary  for  the  position  which  the  church  may  take 
on  a  point  of  teaching  or  practice,  and  that  it  is  suffi- 
cient if  the  matter  in  question  be  not  contrary  to 
Scripture. 

Within  a  week  from  the  date  of  this  letter, 
namely  on  January  19,  1522,  Luther  finished  his 
tract  A  Faithful  Admonition^^  through  which  it  be- 
came generally  known  that  in  his  opinion  the  prac- 
tical reformation  of  the  church  was  principally  the 
business  of  the  civic  rulers ;  in  this  book  he  denied 
to  the  people  the  right  to  abandon  Roman  Catholic 
worship  without  the  consent  of  the  civil  government. 
He  had  decided  in  favor  of  a  union  of  church  and 
state  and  of  going  hand  in  hand  with  the  state  in  the 
great  work  of  the  reformation  of  the  church.  His 
-encounter  with  men  who  questioned  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism  convinced  him  that  the  realization  of 
the  Voluntary  Principle  (involving  the  separation  of 
church  and  state)  would  make  possible  the  existence 
of  differing  creeds.  Only  if  the  church  was  united 
with  the  state  and  all  dissent  forbidden  would  all 
Roman  Catholics  accept  the  new  creed.     In  this  way 


32  INFANT  BAPTISM 

alone  the  (nominal)  unity  of  the  church  could  be 
maintained,  while  the  rejection  of  infant  baptism 
would  make  an  exclusive  state-church  impossible. 
Also  his  controversy  with  his  former  friend  Carlstadt 
(whose  position  was  inconsistent  with  state-church- 
ism  as  well  as  with  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
the  magic  virtue  of  the  sacraments)  seems  to  have 
had  the  effect  on  Luther  to  cause  him  to  again  con- 
cede much  to  the  views  which  he  had  been  taught 
from  his  childhood. 

In  a  later  period  (namely  after  writing  the  letter 
to  Melanchthon  in  which  he  defended  tradition,  or 
the  church,  as  a  rightful  authority)  Luther,  it  is  true, 
asserted  occasionally  that  he  recognized  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  alone.  In  January,  1523,^^  he 
published  a  little  book  Of  Worldly  Government,  to 
what  Extent  zve  Owe  Obedience  to  it,  in  which  he 
says :  *'If  anything  is  without  God's  word,  it  is  uncer- 
tain that  God  desires  it;  for  in  a  matter  which  he 
has  not  commanded  we  can  not  be  sure  that  it  is 
acceptable  to  him;  yea  we  are  sure  that  it  is  not 
pleasing  to  God.  For  he  would  have  our  faith  based 
solely  and  exclusively  on  his  word."^^ 

Other  quotations  of  similar  meaning  can  be  giv- 
en from  Luther's  writings.  Nevertheless  it  is  clear 
that  he  retained  various  practices  on  no  other  author- 
ity than  that  of  tradition  (or  of  the  church)  asserting 
that  these  practices  were  not  contrary  to  Scripture 
although  he  knew  them  to  be  without  a  Scripture 
basis.      *'If    anything   which   has    been    in    use    from 


LUTHER'S  OPINION  ON  AUTHORITY    33 

times  of  yore  [in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church:]  is  to 
be  changed  or  abandoned,"  he  says  in  his  htue  book 
On  Anahaptism,  "it  should  be  and  must  be  proven  to 
be  contrary  to  God's  word/'*^^  The  question  what  is 
to  be  considered  contrary  to  Scripture  he  answered 
to  the  effect  that  only  those  things  should  be  so  con- 
sidered that  are  expressly  forbidden. 

The  maxim  "What  is  not  against  Scripture  is 
for  Scripture  and  Scripture  is  for  it"  was  somewhat 
later  further  modified  by  Luther.  He  asserted  that 
only  that  which  is  forbidden  in  the  New  Testament 
must  be  aboHshed.  In  his  defense  against  Carlstadt 
he  asserts  that  everything  that  is  not  expressly  pro- 
hibited in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  although  it 
be  forbidden  in  the  Old  Testament,  may  be  retained. 
He  says : 

"We  have  taught  from  St.  Paul  the  Christian 
liberty,  that  all  things  should  be  free  which  God  does 
not  forbid  with  clear  words  in. the.. New. Testament 
.  .  .  .  Now  tell  me,  where,  has  he  forbidden  to 
elevate  the  host,  or  commanded,  it?  Show  me  one 
little  word  concerning  it  and  I  shall  yield. "'^^  "If  they 
can  prove  from  the  New  Testament  that  the  pictures 
should  be  removed  [from  the  churches],  we  shall 
willingly  follow  them."*^  v  .     . 

The  Scriptures,  as  a  mattier  of  fact,  are  silent 
concerning  the  elevation  of:  the  host  in  the  mass. 
Carlstadt  condemned  it  as  idolatrous ;.  only  after  his 
death  was  this  practice  abandoned  in  Wittenberg. 
He  also  rejected  the  use  of  the  pictures  in  the 
churches   for  the  good  reason  that  they  were  idola- 


34  INFANT  BAPTISM 

trously  adored.*^  Luther  asserted  further  that  altars, 
priestly  garments,  the  use  of  the  word  mass  etc.  are 
justifiable  because  they  are  not  forbidden. ^^ 

Even  exorcism,  or  the  conjuration  of  Satan  to 
depart  from  the  infant  just  before  baptism  or  "chris- 
tening" was  administered,  was  retained  as  a  custom 
that  is  not  forbidden  in  Scripture — to  the  great 
oflfence  of  the  Anabaptists.  The  form  of  exorcism 
used  somewhat  later  among  the  Lutherans  was :  "I 
conjure  thee,  thou  unclean  spirit,  to  come  out  and 
depart  from  this  servant  of  Jesus  Christ."  The 
Anabaptists  often  denounced  "the  wretched  exor- 
cism" and  other  unscriptural  ceremonies  connected 
with  baptism,  such  as  breathing  upon  the  infant, 
giving  him  salt,  anointing  him  with  oil  and  his  eyes 
with  saliva,  etc. 

Ulrich  Zwingli,  in  the  early  years  of  his  refor- 
matory endeavor,  emphatically  advocated  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  authority  in 
matters  of  faith  and  practice,  and  all  that  can  not  be 
proven  from  Scripture,  must  be  abandoned.  This 
principle  was  zealously  defended  by  him  at  the  first 
Zurich  disputation,  held  on  January  29,  1523,  against 
Johann  Fabri,  the  Vicar  General  of  the  bishop  of 
Constance.    Zwingli  said  in  the  course  of  this  debate: 

"Therefore,  vicar,  I  desire  that  you  show  us 
where  it  is  written  in  divine  Scripture  concerning  the 
invocation  of  the  saints  or  the  intercession  of  the 
mother  of  God.  This  we  desire  to  hear.  Answer  to 
the  point."    "Show  us  only  this,  where,  in  the  biblical 


ZWINGLFS  CHANGE  OF  POSITION      35 

books  mentioned  by  you,  it  is  written  about  the  inter- 
cession and  invocation  of  the  saints.  This  I  desire 
to  be  told  of  you  and  I  ask  you  for  the  sake  of 
Christian  love,  to  do  this  with  clear,  pure,  plain  di- 
vine Scripture. — Show  us  the  chapter  and  give  an- 
swer in  simple,  clear  words.  Say :  there  and  there 
it  is  written,  and  we  shall  find  the  place  to  see  wheth- 
er it  is  correct."  '*I  say,  you  should  prove  from 
Scripture  that  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice."  "Answer  and 
defend  your  opinion  with  clear  Scripture.  Say :  here 
it  is  written."®^ 

In  a  book  published  somewhat  later  Zwingli 
writes : 

''Yes,  indeed,  the  word  of  God  alone  must  settle 
this  matter.  You  say,  for  example,  the  mass  is  a 
sacrifice.  This  you  must  prove  by  the  word  of  God. 
See  now,  you  stand  like  a  goat  before  the  butcher. 
Now  you  begin  to  cry  out:  The  [church]  fathers 
hold  mass  to  be  such.  I  am  not  talking  of  fathers 
nor  of  mothers ;  it  must  be  decided  from  the  word 
of  God."«* 

In  his  controversy  with  those  who  insisted  on 
the  Voluntary  Principle  and  the  separation  of  church 
and  state  Zwingli,  as  well  as  Luther,  decided  to 
change  his  views  on  the  point  in  question.  He 
asserted  now  that  w^hatever  is  not  forbidden  in  the 
Scriptures  is  not  sin  and  hence  may  be  accepted 
although  there  be  no  Scripture  basis  for  it.  The 
Anabaptists  complained  bitterly  that  ZwingH  de- 
manded of  them  proof  that  infant  baptism  is  con- 
trary to  Scripture  (and  would  not  accept  their  proof 
if  they  presented  it),  while,  if  he  would  defend  in- 
fant baptism,  it  was  in  his  place  to  show  that  there 


36  INFANT  BAPTISM 

is  Scripture  ground  for  it.  "They  demand  Scrip- 
ture," says  Conrad  Grebel,  "when  they  themselves 
ought  to  quote  Scripture  to  prove  what  they  assert  to 
be  the  truth."*^  Zwingli  himself  testifies  to  the 
offence  which  his  rejection  of  his  former  position  on 
this  point  gave  to  the  Anabaptists.     He  says: 

"Here  they  cry  murder  over  me  and  say:  A- 
gainst  the  popish  theologians  you  have  always  assert- 
ed, whatever  has  no  basis  in  God's  word  is  unaccept- 
able; and  now  you  say,  there  is  much  [concerning 
Christian  ceremonies,  etc.]  that  is  not  written  in 
God's  word  and  is  nevertheless  in  accordance  with 
God's  will.  Where  is  now  the  strong  reply  which 
you  gave  to  the  suffragan  bishop  Fabri  and  all  men: 
'In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men,'   Matt.   15:9?"^^ 

It  need  not  be  said  that  the  first  period  of  Luth- 
er's and  Zwingli's  reformatory  labors  in  which  they 
advocated  a  reformation  based  wholly  on  Scripture 
was  their  greatest  and  most  consistent  period.  In 
Luther's  instance  this  time  has  been  rightfully  termed 
the  period  of  the  great  reformatory  testimony.  His 
most  famous  writings,  namely  the  Address  to  the 
Nobles,  The  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church,  and 
On  the  Freedom  of  a  Christian  Man,  date  from  this 
period. 

Luther's  attitude  in  the  question  of  religious 
authority  may  be  compared  with  his  position  on  the 
principle  of  liberty  of  conscience.  Being  loath  to 
discard  the  principle  of  liberty  though  he  had  decided 
for    state-churchism,    he    attempted    to    uphold    this 


I 


INFANT  BAPTISM  BASED  ON  TRADITION  Z7 

principle  in  theory,  but  it  can  not  be  denied  that  he 
called  upon  governments  to  suppress  all  teaching 
which  was  at  variance  with  the  Lutheran  creed  and 
that  the  dissenters  were  with  his  consent  cruelly  per- 
secuted in  Lutheran  lands.  In  his  booklet  On  Ana- 
hap  tism  he  attempted  to  point  out  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  although  it  needed  a  reformation, 
is  nevertheless  the  true  church  of  Christ  and  there- 
fore "it  has  the  true  Spirit,  gospel,  faith,  baptism, 
sacrament,  keys,  ministry,  prayers,  holy  Scripture 
and  all  that  Christendom  should  have."®^  The 
Roman  Church,  he  reasons,  is  the  true  church  and 
hence  it  has  the  true  ordinances;  therefore  the  Ana- 
baptists err  in  disowning  the  Roman  Catholic  bap- 
tism. He  based  infant  baptism  on  the  authority  of 
the  church  and  on  tradition. 


CHAPTER  V 

LUTHER'S  AND  MELANCHTHON'S 

DEFENCE  OF  INFANT 

BAPTISM 

When  the  question  of  infant  baptism  was  raised 
for  the  first  time  among  the  followers  of  Martin 
Luther,  Melanchthon,  as  has  been  shown  (p.  18), 
was  ready  to  admit  the  unscripturalness  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  practice.  It  was  generally  realized, 
however,  that  not  he  but  Luther  would  be  called 
upon  to  say  the  final  word  on  this  question  as  far  as 
the  church  of  Saxony  was  concerned.  Luther,  who 
lived  at  that  time  on  the  Wartburg,  apparently  hesi- 
tated for  a  short  time,  but  on  January  13,  1522,  he 
wrote  a  letter  to  Melanchthon  (compare  p.  30) 
asserting  that  infant  baptism  must  be  considered  the 
orthodox  practice. 

The  basis  on  which  Luther  here  defended  infant 
baptism  was  the  common  usage,  tradition,  and  the 
authority  of  the  church,  instead  of  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  which  he  had  shortly  before  so  ear- 
nestly defended.  The  unbiased  student  will  be  im- 
pressed with  the  weakness  of  his  position.  He  as- 
serts  in  this   letter  to   Melanchthon   that  the  church 


LUTHER'S  REMARKABLE    CONFESSION     39 

holds  and  has  always  held  infant  baptism  to  be  per- 
missible ;   to  deny  this,  he  says,  is  to  deny  the  church. 
That  he  speaks  here  of  the  Catholic  Church  does  not 
permit  of  any  doubt;    the  Lutheran  Church  had  not 
yet  been  called  into  existence  when  he  wrote  these 
words.     That  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  approved 
of  infant  baptism  he  considered  sufficient  ground  to 
accept  it  as  valid.     He  based  his  argument  here,  as 
also    Julius    Kostlin,    the    well    known    authority    on 
Luther's  theology,  testifies,  on  tradition  and  the  gen- 
eral usage.     Luther  concludes  his  argumentation  for 
infant  baptism  in  the  said  letter  to  Melanchthon  with 
the   remarkable   sentence:    "I   have   always   expected 
that   Satan   would  touch    [us   at]    this   sore;    he   did 
not  desire  to  raise  this  evil  dissension  through  the 
Papists,  but  through  those  who  are  of  our  own  num- 
ber."*8      These    words    indicate    that    he    believed    it 
probable  that  the   Papists  would  attack  him  on  the 
question    of    infant    baptism;     to    all    appearance    he 
expected  that  they  would  assert  this  practice   to  be 
inconsistent  with  other  doctrines  of  his  system. 

But  had  not  Luther  emphatically  taught  that 
faith  is  the  necessary  prerequisite  for  baptism?  Did 
he  recant  this  teaching  or  modify  his  views  on  this 
point?  No,  strange  to  say,  he  always  insisted  that 
the  Scriptures  teach  the  baptism  of  believers  and 
nevertheless  baptized  the  infants.  He  based  his  prin- 
cipal argument  for  infant  baptism  on  the  curious 
supposition  that  infants  are  believers.  He  held,  if  an 
infant  had  no  faith,  God  would  give  him  faith  just 


40  INFANT  BAPTISM 

before  he  received  the  sacrament  of  baptism;  in 
consequence  of  the  prayer  of  the  church  and  through 
the  power  of  the  holy  word,  he  said,  faith  was 
poured  into  the  infant  (cingegossen) .  Luther  made 
the  strange  assertion  that  if  an  adult  can  have  faith 
when  his  mind  is  occupied  with  worldly  affairs  or 
when  he  is  asleep,  an  infant  also  can  have  faith. 
But  Julius  Kostlin,  in  his  work  on  Luther's  The- 
ology, says  rightly  that  he  fails  to  explain  himself 
satisfactorily  concerning  the  nature  of  the  faith  of 
infants.®^ 

This  opinion  of  the  faith  of  infants  was  zealous- 
ly defended  by  Luther,  Melanchthon  and  their  friends 
as  well  as  by  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  later  cen- 
turies.'^"  In  his  Refutation  of  Some  Unchristian 
Articles  which  the  Anabaptists  hold,  Melanchthon 
says :  "That  the  Anabaptists  say,  The  infants  have 
no  faith,  is  a  human  imagination."  But  curiously 
enough,  Melanchthon,  in  order  to  refute  the  supposed 
teaching  of  the  Anabaptists  that  there  may  be  faith 
where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  God's  word,  says  in 
the  same  book:  "The  holy  Spirit  does  not  work  with- 
out the  word  of  God,  and  we  must  know  and  lay 
hold  on  God  through  his  word,  as  Paul  says,  Faith 
Cometh  by  hearing,  that  is  from  preaching  or  from 
the  outward  word.  This  order  God  will  follow  and 
never  set  aside. ""^^ 

Luther  says : 

"This  is  the  most  fundamental  article  of  our 
doctrine,    that   no    sacrament    can    in    itself,    without 


"INFANTS  ARE  BELIEVERS''  41 

faith,  effect  grace."'^^  "Baptism  should  be  admin- 
istered to  no  one  except  he  himself  believe,  and  no 
one  should  be  baptized  except  on  his  own  faith. "^^ 
"Now  if  we  can  not  prove  that  infants  believe  for 
themselves  and  have  faith,  then  my  honest  judgment 
and  advice  is  straightway  to  cease,  the  sooner  the 
better,  and  nevermore  baptize  an  infant,  that  we  may 
not  mock  and  blaspheme  the  high  majesty  of  God 
with  such  foolish  and  fraudulent  work  which  would 
be  nothing  but  empty  show."'^* 

In  his  book  On  Anahaptism,  to  Tzvo  Pastors,'^* 
Luther  sets  forth  the  strange  argument  that  there  is 
more  certainty  concerning  the  faith  of  infants,  than 
of  adults  who  profess  to  be  believers.  He  quotes  the 
last  part  of  the  sentence :  "I  said  in  my  haste,  All 
men  are  liars"  (Psa.  116:11)  in  support  of  this  argu- 
ment. "Even  if  Saint  Peter  baptized  some  one,"  he 
says,  "nevertheless  no  one  could  know  whether  Saint 
Peter  at  that  hour  believed  or  doubted. ""^^  But  since 
the  Anabaptists  did  not  accept  the  view  that  baptism 
possesses  a  miraculous,  magic  power,  the  act  of  bap- 
tism obviously  would  not  be  invalid  if  the  one  who 
administered  it  were  not  a  Christian  at  heart.  The 
vital  point  is  that  the  applicant  for  baptism  beHeves 
in  Christ  as  his  personal  redeemer.  Here  Luther 
replies  that  no  one  can  be  sure  of  his  own  saving 
faith.  "Believe  we  must,  but  we  shall  not  and  can 
not  know  with  certainty. "'^^  Hence,  says  Luther,  the 
applicant  for  baptism  "is  not  sure  of  his  faith."  His 
opinion  of  the  uncertainty  of  faith  was  emphatically 
rejected  by  the  (Lutheran)  Pietists  of  a  later  period. 


42  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Upon  the  assertion  that  infant  baptism  is  accept- 
able because  it  is  the  usage  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
Luther  enlarges  further  in  his  book  On  Anabaptism. 
He  defends  the  view  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
altough  it  needed  a  reformation,  was  the  true  church 
of  Christ  and  hence,  he  argues,  it  must  have  the  true 
baptism. ^^  He  ignores  the  fact  that  on  this  score  there 
could  be  maintained  many  practices  which  he  em- 
phatically condemned.  The  baptism  of  infants,  he 
declares,  was  generally  practiced  in  the  Christian 
church,  and  this  was  to  him  proof  that  ''infant  bap- 
tism must  be  right."     He  continues: 

*'You  may  say,  this  is  no  certain  evidence  that 
infant  baptism  is  acceptable  for  there  is  no  passage 
from  the  Scriptures.  My  answer  is:  It  is  true, 
there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  from  Scripture  that 
you  might  be  justified  to  begin  infant  baptism  [had 
you  lived]  at  the  time  of  the  early  Christians  after 
the  apostolic  period.  But  so  much  is  evident  that  in 
our  time  no  one  may  venture  with  a  good  conscience 
to  reject  or  abandon  infant  baptism  which  has  so  long 
been  practiced."'^®  ''For  nothing  should  be  discarded 
or  changed  which  cannot  be  discarded  or  changed 
with  clear  Scripture."®^ 

The  argument  based  on  circumcision  was  also 
advanced  by  the  Lutheran  reformers.  Melanchthon 
defended  the  opinion  that  circumcision  was  for  the 
Old  Covenant  what  baptism  is  for  the  New,  and  that 
both  were  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  infants.  He 
says  further:  "In  the  first  place  it  was  commanded 
in  the  Law  that  the  young  children  should  be  cir- 
cumcised  on   the   eighth   day."®^      He   overlooks   the 


ARGUMENT  BASED  ON  CIRCUMCISION      43 

fact  that  circumcision  concerned  only  the  male  chil- 
dren. If  baptism  corresponds  to  circumcision  and  is 
necessary  to  save  the  infant,  it  would  follow,  as  was 
pointed  out  by  some  of  the  Anabaptist  writers,  that 
the  male  children  alone  were  included  in  God's  grace 
in  Old  Testament  times,  and  further,  the  baptism  of 
females  would  be  unauthorized. 

The  Anabaptists  did  not  admit  that  circumcision 
can  be  made  the  basis  of  an  argument  for  infant 
baptism.  They  insisted  on  a  difference  in  the  nature 
of  the  Old  and  New  Covenant.  In  Old  Testament 
times  the  people  of  the  Covenant  were  a  nation;  God 
made  this  covenant  with  all  the  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham by  Isaac  and  Jacob.  It  was  not  left  to  the  de- 
cision of  each  Israelite  whether  he  would  be  included 
in  this  outward  covenant ;  hence  the  males  received 
the  rite  of  circumcision  in  their  infancy.  In  the 
Christian  church  the  right  of  membership  is  not 
based  on  the  natural  birth.  "That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh."  A  New  Testament  church  is  not 
a  national  organization ;    it  is  a  body  of  believers. 

Another  reason  set  forth  in  the  same  work  of 
Luther  is  contained  in  the  following  sentence :  "If 
[infant]  baptism  is  right  and  effective  and  saves  the 
children,  as  we  believe,  and  I  discarded  it,  I  should 
be  guilty  of  [the  damnation  of]  all  children  who 
[died  in  infancy  and^  would  be  lost  without  baptism. 
This  would  be  terrible  and  frightful. "^^  "The  truth 
is,"  says  Adolf  Schlatter,  "that  not  the  belief  in  the 
faith   of   the   infants   or   of   the   godfathers,   but   the 


44  INFANT  BAPTISM 

fear  that  the  infants  would  without  baptism  be  con- 
demned to  hell,  is  responsible  for  the  continued 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  But  fear  is  not  a  valid 
foundation  in  this  instance.  Infant  baptism  in  this 
shape  is  faithless  and  sinful,  an  after-effect  of  the 
superstitious  disfiguration  of  the  sacrament  with 
which  the  mediaeval  church  was   stained."®^ 

The  argument  that  infants  are  in  danger  of 
eternal  damnation  without  baptism  is  based  on  the 
Roman  Catholic  view  of  the  saving  efficiency  of  the 
sacraments,  which  was  at  first  discarded  but  finally 
re-adopted  by  Luther.^*  In  his  Smaller  Catechism  he 
speaks  of  baptism  as  **a  gracious  water  of  life."^^ 
Melanchthon  in  his  Instruction  Against  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Anabaptists  says  on  this  point: 

"Since  there  is  forgiveness  of  sin  only  where 
there  is  the  Word  and  sacrament,  it  follows  that  sal- 
vation pertains  only  to  those  infants  to  whom  the 
sacrament  is  administered.  —  Therefore  the  enthu- 
siasts, or  Anabaptists,  can  never  truthfully  say  that 
the  infants  to  whom  baptism  is  not  administered  are 
saved  or  obtain  remission  of  sin.  Say,  ye  Anabap- 
tists, what  passage,  what  ground  or  example  of 
Scripture  will  you  here  set  forth,  to  prove  to  us  that 
there  is  forgiveness  of  sin  without  the  Christian 
church? — Here  we  must  also  say  what  kind  of  sin  is 
remitted  for  the  infants.  I  notice  that  the  Fathers 
held   that   original   sin   is   forgiven   for   them.     Thus 

writes  Augustine   in  many  places This   opinion 

I  also  will  follow,  since  it  is  founded  on  Scripture."^*' 

At  a  later  date,  probably  in  1535,  Melanchthon 
rewrote   his   Instruction,   making   many   changes   and 


MELANCHTHON'S    LATER    POSITION    45 

additions.  He  says:  "God  has  given  the  church 
authority  to  forgive  sins  and  to  dispense  such  for- 
giveness through  the  sacraments.  It  follows  there- 
fore that  we  owe  it  to  the  infants  to  impart  unto 
them  forgiveness  through  baptism."  In  the  same 
book  he  says  further :  "In  the  doctrine  of  the  Ana- 
baptists you  find  many  abominable  errors,  falsehoods, 
and  blasphemy  against  God. — Anabaptism  is  a  ter- 
rible, wicked  error  and  blasphemy  against  the  divine 
name."*^ 

So  completely  did  Melanchthon  in  later  years 
forget  his  own  former  inability  to  defend  infant  bap- 
tism and  his  wavering  attitude  on  this  question,  that 
in  this  and  other  instances  he  declared  the  Anabaptist 
deviation  from  the  Lutheran  creed  to  be  blasphemy. 
On  the  supposition  that  heresy  is  blasphemy  he 
opined  that  the  Anabaptists,  on  account  of  their 
teaching  on  infant  baptism  and  other  doctrinal  points,, 
should  be  executed  as  blasphemers.**  Luther  also, 
in  later  years,  was  of  the  opinion  that  Anabaptists 
could  be  rightfully  put  to  death.  And  yet  he  did  not 
deny  that  on  the  principal  point  of  controversy  they 
held  an  orthodox  position  in  so  far  as  they  believed 
faith  to  be  necessary  prerequisite  for  baptism.  He 
built  his  defence  of  infant  baptism  on  the  sophistical 
argument  that  infants  have  faith.  The  Anabaptists 
found  themselves  unable  to  concede  to  him  this  point 
and  hence  were  subjected  to  the  most  cruel  persecu- 
tion. 

A  notable   refutation  of  the  belief   that  infants 


46  INFANT  BAPTISM 

may  have  faith  and  are  lost  without  baptism  is  con- 
tained in  the  Reply  of  the  Huterite  Brethren  to  the 
Calumny  of  Colman  Rorer,  the  Flacian  Teacher, 
1593.  Colman  Rorer,  a  minister  of  the  Flacians  (the 
most  conservative  wing  of  the  Lutherans)  defended 
this  supposition  against  the  Huterite  Anabaptists  and 
accused  them  that  they  "wantonly  rob  the  infants  of 
eternal  life"  by  refusing  to  baptize  them.  The 
Brethren  wrote  in  reply  to  his  attack : 

"You  undertake  to  show  that  infants  have  faith 
in  Christ,  for  the  reason  that  Christ  set  a  child  in  the 
midst  of  his  disciples.  This  will  never  stand  the  test, 
the  Gospel  writer  says :  Jesus  called  a  child  and  set 
it  in  their  midst.  Well  now,  call  a  child  in  the 
cradle  a  whole  day,  and  see  whether  it  will  come. 
And  your  infants  whom  you  baptize  can  neither 
stand  nor  walk.  How  does  this  accord?  Like  black 
and  white.  Say,  what  could  you  do  to  an  uncon- 
scious infant  that  he  be  offended? — You  ask,  wheth- 
er God  can  not  give  the  infants  faith,  since  it  is  the 
gift  of  God.  Answer:  He  could  also  cause  them  to 
know  the  difference  between  good  and  evil,  but  he 
will  not  do  it,  and  nevertheless  he  is  Almighty  God. — 
Well,  well,  you  say,  how  do  you  know  that  infants  do 
not  believe?  Now  let  the  holy  apostle  who  was  a 
chosen  vessel  of  God  give  the  answer.  He  says : 
'How  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have 
not  heard?'  Faith,  says  the  apostle,  is  the  confidence 
of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not 
seen.  Now,  show  us  what  sort  of  confidence  have 
the  infants  in  the  cradle.  What  things  do  they  hope 
for?  What  evidence  have  they  of  things  not  seen? 
O  Egyptian  darkness  and  blindness !     What  sort  of 


SALVATION  OF  INFANTS  47 

faith  our  infants  have,  the  same  faith  have  also  the 
infants  of  Jews  and  Turks.  And  is  it  any  fault  of 
theirs  that  you  do  not  also  baptize  them? 

"You  write,  we  wantonly  rob  the  infants  of 
eternal  life.  This  you  say  contrary  to  the  truth,  as 
is  your  fashion.  But  know  that  God  asks  of  little 
infants  neither  faith  nor  baptism;  he  will  not  damn 
the  blessed  dear  innocents  for  they  are  not  able  to 
believe.  If  God  has  spared  the  great  city  of  Nineveh 
for  the  children's  sake,  there  being  in  the  city  twelve 
times  ten  thousand  who  could  not  discern  between 
their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand,  why  should  he 
now,  after  Christ,  our  only  Saviour  and  Redeemer, 
(has  died  for  the  human  family,  not  spare  our  inno- 
cent youth  and  exempt  them  from  perdition?  Which 
is  greater,  baptism  or  Christ  who  is  the  only  mercy- 
seat  and  mediator?  Who  has  baptized  the  thief  on 
the  cross?  Nevertheless  Paradise  was  promised  him. 
Who  now  may  be  so  impudent  and  presumptuous  to 
damn  the  innocent  infants  because  they  are  not 
baptized,  though  indeed  Christ  says,  'Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,'  and  does  not  even  allude  to 
baptism?  But  you  are  the  one  who  does  that  of 
which  you  accuse  us,  saying  that  we  condemn  others;; 
for  you  condemn  the  infants  except  you  give  them 
infant  baptism.  But  concerning  us  you  say  the  un- 
truth. This  is  to  cast  out  Jesus  Christ  from  hi& 
rightful  place,  to  set  human  opinion  on  his  stead  and 
to  decide  on  matters  which  God  has  reserved  for  his 
judgment."®® 

"The  poor  innocent  children  who  were  not  bap- 
tized with  this  baptism  although  they  were  baptized 
in  the  blood  of  the  Lord  and  have  the  sure  promise 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  says  Menno  Simons,  "are 


48  INFANT  BAPTISM 

nevertheless  considered  lost  and  are  buried  without 
the  [consecrated]  graveyard.  What  infamy!  What 
blindness !"«« 

Besides  Luther  and  Melanchthon  the  most  not- 
able literary  antagonist  of  the  Anabaptists  among  the 
Lutherans  was  Justus  Menius,  the  reformer  of  Thur- 
ingia.  To  his  first  two  books  Luther  wrote  the 
prefaces.  He  says  in  the  preface  to  the  second  book: 
"So  overwhelmingly  has  Justus  Menius  refuted  the 
Anabaptists'  heresy  that  (as  I  have  said)  even  a  cow, 
if  she  had  reason,  must  say,  it  is  the  truth  and  can 
not  be  otherwise."*^  Menius'  arguments  proved  in- 
efficient to  convince  the  Anabaptists  and  their  friends 
— a  fact  that  is  readily  accounted  for  by  those  who 
have  read  his  books.^^  Professor  Paul  Tschackert 
says  rightfully  that  the  greatest  uncertainty  prevailed 
atriong  the  Lutherans  and  Zwinglians  in  the  matter  of 
the  proper  defence  of  infant  baptism. ^^ 


CHAPTER  VI 

WHY  ZWINGLI   DEFENDED   INFANT 
BAPTISM 

While  Zwingli  was  for  a  time  of  the  opinion 
that  it  were  better  to  abandon  the  baptism  of  infants, 
he  became  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  as  pointed 
out  elsewhere,  one  of  the  foremost  opponents  of  the 
practice  of  believers'  baptism.  If  we  inquire  into 
the  causes  for  the  change  in  his  position  on  this 
question,  his  own  writings  give  us  the  information 
which  we  desire.  Not  through  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures  was  he  led  to  defend  infant  baptism,  but 
through  the  acceptance  of  the  opinion  that  a  union 
of  church  and  state  was  necessary  for  the  success  of 
the  Reformation. 

In  Zwingli's  view  the  church  needed  the  strong 
arm  of  the  state  to  become  firmly  established  and  to 
overcome  all  opposition.^*  He  was  led  to  realize  that 
some  of  the  citizens  of  Zurich  (possibly  a  majority) 
would  follow  other  religious  leaders,  if  the  state  did 
not  prescribe  the  Zwinglian  creed.  Unless  an  exclu- 
sive state-church  was  established  and  the  acceptance 
of  other  creeds  made  unlawful  by  the  state,  the 
(nominal)  unity  of  the  church  would  be  lost.     More- 


50  INFANT  BAPTISM 

over  it  was  doubtful  whether  the  state-authorities 
could  be  persuaded  to  consent  to  the  toleration  of 
free  churches  organized  on  New  Testament  prin- 
ciples. 

Zwingli  decided  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  the 
state  in  the  reformation  of  the  church.  He  accepted 
the  view  that  a  union  of  church  and  state,  (and 
hence  infant  baptism)  was  necessary  for  the  pros- 
perity of  the  church.  It  is  clear  from  his  own  testi- 
mony that  his  decision  in  favor  of  infant  baptism 
was  based  primarily  on  expediency  and  the  supposed 
needs  of  the  church.  J.  M.  Usteri  says  correctly: 
**The  impulses  which  led  him  in  this  instance  were 
not  the  results  of  theological  thinking,  but  had  their 
cause  in  the  [supposed]  needs  of  the  church."^ 
Zwingli  says : 

"It  must  not  be  supposed  that  I  care  much  for 
infant  baptism. — If  I  should  notice  that  this  practice 
is  not  conducive  to  God's  honor  and  to  a  Christian* 
life,  I  should  readily  change  my  opinion."®^  "If 
infant  baptism  had  never  been  practiced,  it  could  be 
introduced  tomorrow,  if  we  would  see  that  it  is  con- 
ducive to  peace  and  to  the  good  [of  the  church].*'*^ 
"For  I  know  that  infant  baptism  brings  to  the  Chris- 
tian people  great  blessing."^®  "If  the  matter  is  close- 
ly looked  into,  it  will  be  seen  that  ye  contend  for  vain 
outward  things,"  he  addressed  the  Swiss  Anabaptists 
who  insisted  on  believers'  baptism.®^  "Should  not 
infant  baptism,  as  well  as  all  other  outward  things 
be  discreetly  used  or  abandoned,  whichever  would  be 
most  conducive  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Christian! 
church  ?"i«« 


BAPTISM   A    DIVINE    INSTITUTION      51 

The  Swiss  Anabaptists,  on  the  other  hand,  point- 
ed out  that  Zwingli  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  bap- 
tism is  a  command  of  Christ.  Conrad  Grebel  in  his 
Defen<:e,  addressed  to  the  Council  of  Zurich,  v/rites : 
""They  say  it  is  not  of  importance  how  baptism  is 
used,  but  this  opinion  can  not  be  estabHshed  by  Scrip- 
ture, for  the  Scriptures  indicate  that  it  is  God's  will 
that  his  commandments  and  rites  should  be  kept  as 
he  has  commanded  them."^^^  And  frequently  Zwingli 
"himself  asserted  that  error  on  the  point  of  baptism  is 
a  most  serious  mistake.  In  his  Book  on  Baptis  n  he 
defended  the  opinion  that  "those  who  consent  to 
rebaptism,     [i.    e.    the    Anabaptists]     crucify    Christ 


CHAPTER   VII 

ZWINGLI^S   PUBLIC  DEBATES  WITH 
ANABAPTISTS 

The  discussions  held  between  Zwingli  and  the 
Anabaptist  leaders  constitute  an  important  chapter 
f  ^  in  the  history  of  baptism.  A  few  modern  historians 
f  ^  have  asserted  that  ZwingU  in  the  pubHc  debates  on 
the  question  of  baptism  was  victorious  over  his  op- 
ponents. It  is  true  that  he  often  made  this  assertion. 
His  testimony  on  this  point,  however,  can  not  be 
uncritically  accepted. 

The  first  public  debate  between  the  Swiss  Ana- 
baptists and  ZwingH  w^^s  held  on  January  17,  1525,  in 
the  city  hall  of  Zurich.  The  Zwinglian  historian 
Bullinger,  who  was  present  at  the  discussions,  testi- 
fies that  Grebel,  Mantz  and  Roublin  presented  their 
arguments   for  believers'  baptism  as  follows : 

"Infants  can  not  believe  and  do  not  understand 
what  baptism  is.  Baptism  should  be  administered  to 
beHevers  to  whom  the  Gospel  has  been  previously 
preached,  who  have  understood  it  and  of  their  own 
accord  desire  baptism  and  who  are  willing  to  mortify 
the  old  man  and  lead  a  new  Hfe.  Of  all  this  the 
infants  know  nothing  whatever,  therefore  baptism  is 
not  intended   for  them.     Here  they  cited  the   Scrips 


ZWINGLI  ON  RESULT  OF  DISCUSSIONS    53 

tures  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  showed  that  the  apostles  did  not  baptize  infants, 
but  only  those  who  had  come  to  an  age  of  under- 
standing; therefore  the  same  should  now  be  done. 
And  infant  baptism,  being  not  administered  in  accord 
with  Scripture,  was  invalid  and  it  was  necessary  to 
be  baptized  anew."^^^ 

Bullinger  does  not  tell  us  in  particular  how  Zwingli 
met  these  arguments,  but  says  simply,  his  grounds 
and  arguments  were  the  same  as  he  afterwards  set 
forth  in  his  Book  on  Baptism. 

On  the  day  following  the  debate  the  Council 
(the  civil  authorities)  of  Zurich  pubHshed  a  decree 
demanding  that  all  unbaptized  infants  must  be  bap- 
tized within  eight  days  and  those  who  would  not 
comply  with  this  ruling  must  leave  the  country.  In 
this  decree  the  debate  on  baptism  is  mentioned  but, 
remarkably  enough,  it  is  not  asserted  that  Zwingli 
successfully  refuted  the  arguments  of  his  opponents 
against  infant  baptism.^^*.  Zwingli,  in  his  Book  on 
Baptism  and  elsewhere,  makes  this  assertion,  how- 
ever, and  also  says:  ''We  have  the  testimony  of  the 
whole  honorable  Council  that  the  Anabaptists  have 
always  been  overcome. "^°^  He  knew  that  in  Zurich 
the  Council  would  decide  against  those  who  defended 
believers'  baptism. 

Again,  Zwingli  informs  us  that  after  the  debate 
of  January  17  all  theologians  "were  of  the  opinion 
that  it  were  not  proper  but  dangerous  to  have  fur- 
ther debates  with  them."^^^  It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  the  Council  of  Zurich  showed  evident  uneasiness 


54  INFANT  BAPTISM 

when  information  reached  them  that  a  pubUc  discus- 
sion on  the  question  of  infant  baptism  was  to  be  held 
in  Schaffhausen  (in  which,  doubtless,  Hubmaier 
would  take  part).  The  Council,  on  February  8,  1525, 
addressed  the  authorities  of  Schaffhausen  as  follows : 

''Having  heard  that  you  intend  to  hold  a  convo- 
cation or  debate  concerning  infant  baptism  in  your 
city  and  have  invited  for  this  purpose  a  number  of 
learned  men,  to  ascertain  the  teaching  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, we  desire  to  say  that  our  theologians  have 
recognized  the  Anabaptist  doctrines  as  erroneous. 
And  we  would  further  inform  you  that  Ulrich 
Zwingli  will  forthwith  publish  a  book  [on  the  said 
question]  and  we  ask  you  to  postpone  the  debate 
until  you  have  read  Zwingli's  book.  But  if  you  will 
not  wait,  then  inform  us  of  the  appointed  day  that  we 
may  send  our  representatives  and  theologians. "^^^ 

'This  letter  betrays  that  the  Council  of  Zurich 
entertained  the  fear  that  a  religious  debate  at  Schaff- 
hausen might  lead  to  different  results  from  those  of 
the  debate  held  at  Zurich,"  says  C.  A.  Bachtold. 
Instead  of  welcoming  a  discussion  on  the  burning 
question  of  the  day  and  offering,  as  might  have  been 
expected,  to  send  their  leading  reformer  for  the  de- 
fence of  the  opinion  for  which  they  stood,  the  Coun- 
cil of  Zurich  feared  that  a  debate  would  serve  to 
convince  the  authorities  of  Schaffhausen  of  the  right- 
fulness of  Anabaptism.  Again,  at  other  places, 
notably  at  St.  Gall,  the  state-church  party  found 
itself  in  desperate  straits  in  the  combat  with  the 
dissenters,  but   we   do   not  hear   of   Zwingli   offering 


ANABAPTISTS  DESIRE  PUBLIC  DEBATE     55 

himself  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  his  friends. 
The  Council  of  Schaffhausen  complied  with  the  de- 
sire of  the  authorities  of  Zurich  and  did  not  arrange 
for  a  debate. 

On  March  20,  1525,  a  discussion  was  held  be- 
tween leading  Anabaptists  and  the  Zwinglian  reform- 
ers in  Zurich.  The  Anabaptist  spokesmen  were,  one 
after  another,  brought  up  from  the  prison  for  a 
hearing  and  to  be  instructed  by  Zwingli  and  his  help- 
ers, Leo  Jud  and  Oswald  Myconius;  it  was  in  every 
instance  an  unequal  combat  of  three  against  one. 

The  Anabaptists  desired  a  public  debate  in  which 
they  would  have  permission  to  present  their  argu- 
ments and  speak  freely  without  being  interrupted  and 
hindered  by  their  opponents.  They  complained  that 
they  were  refused  the  right  to  publish  books  or  tracts 
and  in  the  public  discussions  Zwingli  had  all  liberty 
to  interrupt  them  and  prevent  the  full  presentation 
of  their  argument.     BuUinger  says : 

"They  asserted  that  although  a  debate  was  held 
with  them,  they  had  found  it  impossible  to  get  a 
rightful  hearing  and  Zwingli  did  not  permit  any  one 
[of  his  opponents]  to  express  himself  unhindered." 
"He  has  a  way  to  make  it  impossible  for  his  oppo- 
nents to  give  voice  to  the  truth.  He  has  maintained 
his  cause  not  with  God's  Word  but  through  talking 
more  and  louder  than  any  one  else,  and  through  the 
authority  of  the  government."^^® 

From  at  least  three  sides  the  Council  was  peti- 
tioned to  arrange  for  a  public  debate  with  the  Ana- 
baptists.    The  civil  authorities  of  the  principality  of 


56  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Griiningen  in  the  Canton  Zurich  sent  four  deputies 
"to  ask  Our  Lords  [the  Council]  earnestly  and 
urgently  to  have  another  debate  held  with  the  prison- 
ers." Further  the  four  men  were  instructed  ''to 
petition  the  Council  that  Zwingli  be  admonished  to 
let  the  Anabaptists  have  their  say  and  not  to  inter- 
rupt them  when  they  bring  forth  their  arguments. — 
But  if  Our  Gracious  Lords  would  deny  this  right  to 
the  poor,  honest  men  and  would  not  permit  them  a 
debate  (which  we  do  by  no  means  expect)  in  such 
case  the  four  deputies  will  inform  us  of  their  de- 
cision."^^^ 

Two  written  petitions  of  Anabaptists  for  a  de- 
bate at  this  time  are  preserved  in  the  archives  of 
Zurich. ^^°  They  are  touching  appeals,  addressed  to 
the  Council,  "to  let  the  divine  Word  prevail  and 
decide  these  matters."     They  say  further: 

"We  desire  the  divine,  clear,  unadulterated  Word 
of  God  without  any  additional  suppositions  and  opin- 
ions. For  what  is  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 
we  do  by  no  means  desire. — Gracious  Lords,  we  ask 
you  for  God's  sake  to  arrange  a  public  discussion  of 
this  question  similar  to  the  debate  concerning  pictures 
[in  the  churches]  and  mass. — If  in  a  discussion  it  be 
found  from  Scripture  that  we  err,  we  shall  willingly 
yield,  be  it  in  the  matter  of  baptism  or  in  other 
points." 

The  Anabaptists  desired  a  debate  although  they 
were  aware  that  the  judges  who  were  to  decide  con- 
cerning the  results  would  be  of  their  opponent  party. 
Since   it   was   impossible   for   them   to   defend   them- 


GREAT  ANABAPTIST  DEBATE  57 

selves  through  the  press,  they  entertained  the  hope 
that  a  public  discussion  would  serve  to  stop  the 
mouth  of  the  slanderers  and  to  persuade  the  Council 
of  the  harmlessness  of  their  views.  They  overlooked 
the  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  Council,  under  Zwing- 
li's  leadership  had  espoused  the  cause  of  state-church- 
ism  and  believed  with  him  that  infant  baptism  was 
indispensible  for  the  prosperity  of  the  church.  It 
need  not  be  repeated  here  that  to  the  principle  of  an 
exclusive  state-church,  the  Anabaptist  tenets  were 
destructive. 

Urged  from  various  quarters  the  Council  finally 
decided  to  have  a  debate  on  infant  baptism.  It  has 
been  pointed  out  above  that  in  Zwingli's  opinion 
further  debates  with  the  Anabaptists  were  "danger- 
ous," but  even  he  finally  consented.  Bullinger  in- 
forms us  that  four  judges  were  appointed  to  preside, 
in  order  that  no  one  would  be  interrupted  or  per- 
mitted "to  speak  contrary  to  good  rules  of  order." 
The  judges  were  leading  representatives  of  Zwingli- 
anism :  Wolfgang  Joner  of  Cappel,  Conrad  Schmidt 
of  Kiissnach,  Sebastian  Hofmeister  of  Schaffhausen 
and  Joachim  Vadian  of  St.  Gall. 

The  great  debate  was  held  on  November  7,  8, 
and  9,  1525,  in  the  Great  Minster  Church.^"  A 
glance  over  the  sentences  which  were  made  the  basis 
for  the  discussions  shows  at  once  that  the  Anabap- 
tists had  no  voice  in  their  adoption  as  questions  for 
the  debate.  The  last  of  the  sentences  has  the  asser- 
tion that  to  rebaptize  on  the  confession  of  faith  is  "to 


58  INFANT  BAPTISM 

crucify  Christ  anew."  Bullinger  informs  us  again 
that  Zwingli's  arguments  in  this  debate  are  the  same 
as  those  found  in  his  reply  to  Hubmaier's  book  on 
Believers'  Baptism.  At  the  close  of  the  last  session 
Conrad  Grebel,  Felix  Mantz  and  George  Blaurock 
were  *'layed  into  the  New  Tower"  while  Michael 
Sattler  and  others  were  banished/^^  After  a  short 
time  the  prisoners  were  released  with  the  announce- 
ment that  '*if  they  persist  in  their  separation  [from 
the  state-church]  the  most  severe  punishment  would 
be  meted  out  to  them.""^ 

Immediately  after  this  debate  the  Anabaptists 
again  complained  that  "they  were  not  given  a  proper 
hearing."  Bullinger,  speaking  of  the  debates  in  gen- 
eral,"* does  not  deny  that  they  were  interrupted  but 
naively  enough,  asserts  there  was  a  reason :  "For 
they  would  say  only  what  they  desired,  and  not  what 
they  ought  to  say.""*^  One  of  the  judges  in  this  de- 
bate, Conrad  Schmidt,  published  a  sermon  delivered 
at  the  time  of  the  disputation  of  Bern,  1528,  against 
the  Anabaptists.  This  sermon  is  of  importance,  not 
for  its  intrinsic  worth  and  the  reliability  of  its  state- 
ments but  because  it  shows  strikingly  the  attitude  of 
one  of  the  judges  toward  the  Anabaptists.  On  the 
basis  of  the  text  Phil.  3:18,  19  ("....whose  end  is 
destruction,  whose  God  is  their  belly,"  etc.)  Schmidt 
has  the  following  to  say: 

"No  one  has  ever  portrayed  the  Anabaptists 
more  faithfully  than  Paul  in  these  verses. — To  ad- 
vance  their  Caiaphas-like  knavery   they   preach   first 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   CONDEMNED       59 

of  all  that  one  should  not  say  the  'Hail  Mary'  [the 
well  known  prayer  to  Mary].  Fy  upon  the  devilish, 
impertinent  Anabaptists  that  they  are  not  ashamed 
to  refuse  due  honor  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  Who  could 
rebuke  me,  if  without  ceasing^  I  said :  'Hail  Mary' 
etc.?  And  again  who  would  not  severely  rebuke  me 
if  I  permitted  the  unchristian  Anabaptists  to  scare 
me  that  I  should  never  again  say  the  'Hail  Mary'? 
But  nothing  is  too  much  or  too  scandalous  for  the 
impudent,  devilish  spirit  of  Anabaptism.^^^  —  Tlic 
truth  does  not  sound  well  to  their  ears ;  the  water  of 
Anabaptism  got  into  their  ears  that  they  let  them 
hang  like  swine,"  etc.^^^ 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ZWINGLI'S  ARGUMENTS   FOR   INFANT 

BAPTISM,   AS   SET   FORTH    IN 

HIS  WRITINGS 

Zwingli  defended  his  position  on  baptism  against 
the  Anabaptists  principally  in  three  books,  namely 
his  Book  on  Baptism,^^^  his  Reply  to  Hubmaier's  first 
defence  of  believers'  baptism^^^  and  a  treatise  pub- 
lished in  Latin,  the  Refutation  of  Anabaptist  Tricks.^-'^ 

Zwingli's  Book  on  Baptism  which  was  expected 
by  the  Council  of  Zurich  to  be  ready  for  publication 
soon  after  the  debate  of  January  17,  1525,  was  not 
finished  until  the  end  of  May  of  the  same  year. 
Apparently  Zwingli  found  the  defence  of  infant  bap- 
tism a  perplexing  task.  "The  Scriptures  [relating  to 
baptism]  must  be  interpreted  otherwise  than  they 
have  been  until  now,"  he  wrote  on  March  31,  1525  to 
Vadian,  announcing  at  the  same  time  that  he  was 
writing  a  book  on  the  subject.^^^  The  publication  of 
this  book  (or  tract)  was  anxiously  awaited  by  the 
representatives  of  the  state-church  Reformation  in 
Switzerland.  The  question  of  infant  baptism  was  the 
burning  issue  of  the  day.    The  eyes  of  the  friends  of 


ZWINGLrS  DEFENSE  ASKED  61 

Zwingli,  especially  of  the  church  leaders  in  various 
Swiss  cantons,  were  directed  to  him,  expecting  him  to 
bring  forth  sound  proof  for  his  position.  They  were 
xJearly  depending  on  him  for  arguments. 

Martin  Bucer  of  Strasburg  wrote  to  Zwingli  on 
October  31,  1524,^^^  and  again,  together  with  Wolf- 
gang Capito,  a  few  weeks  later,^^^  asking  Scripture 
ground  for  infant  baptism.  John  CEcolampad  of 
Basel  petitioned  him  in  a  similar  way  on  November 
21  of  the  same  year.^^*  Berthold  Haller,  the  leading 
reformer  of  Bern,  wrote  repeatedly  to  Zwingli  asking 
Wm  to  give  the  best  arguments  for  the  state-church 
practice  of  baptism;  even  after  the  pubhcation  of 
Zwingli's  Book  on  Baptism  he  asked  for  further 
reasons  to  the  point.  "Help  us,  dear  Ulrich,"  he  says 
in  one  of  these  letters,  "to  frustrate  the  Anabaptists' 
cause."^^*^  At  St.  Gall  the  state-church  leaders  found 
themselves  unable  to  effectually  defend  infant  bap- 
tism; here  eight  hundred  persons  were  baptized 
within  a  few  months.  According  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Zwinglian  chronicler  John  Kessler,  "in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  congregation  of  St.  Lawrence  Church  [the 
principal  church  of  the  city]  the  truth  was  on  the 
side  of  the  Anabaptists."^^®  When  Zwingli's  book 
appeared,  it  was  publicly  read  to  the  congregation  of 
this  church.  In  other  cantons  of  the  Swiss  con- 
federacy also  the  cause  of  the  Anabaptists  progressed. 
The  urgent  need  of  defending  infant  baptism  was 
generally  recognized  by  the  advocates  of  state- 
churchism. 


62  INFANT  BAPTISM 

In  his  Book  on  Baptism  which  was  published'- 
early  in  June,  1525,  Zwingli  gives  this  definition  of 
baptism:  ''Baptism  is  a  sign  (rite)  laying  obligations 
on  those  who  accept  it  and  indicating  that  they  desire 
to  mend  their  lives  and  follow  Christ."^^^  Again  he 
says :  "He  who  through  baptism  surrenders  himself 
to  God,  desires  to  hear  his  word,  to  learn  his  will 
and  to  walk  in  accordance  with  it."^-^  "Baptism  is  a 
rite  indicating  a  beginning  through  which  we  accept 
the  obligation  imposed  upon  us  by  God  to  live  a  new 
life;  in  witness  thereof  we  receive  baptism/'*^ 
Needless  to  say  that  Zwingli  found  it  a  difficult  task 
to  defend  infant  baptism  on  the  basis  of  such  defini- 
tions of  baptism. 

"Baptism  was  instituted  by  God  through  John: 
the  Baptist,"  says  Zwingli  further,^^^  and  there  is  no 
distinction  between  the  baptism  of  John  and  Chris- 
tian baptism.  It  follows  that  the  pertinent  passages 
in  the  last  chapter  of  Matthew  and  Mark  which 
closely  connect  faith  with  baptism,  are  not  so  im- 
portant as  has  been  supposed,  "since  in  this  place 
baptism  was  not  instituted. "^^^  It  follows  further 
that  those  who  were  baptized  by  John,  were  in  no 
instance  again  baptized  when  they  united  with  the 
Christian  church ;  hence  "rebaptism  has  no  example 
or  ground  in  God's  word."^^^  That  Paul  rebaptized 
the  twelve  disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus  (Acts  19: 
1-5)  Zwingli  denied  on  the  supposition  that  they  had" 
never  before  been  baptized.  They  confessed  to  have- 
been  baptized  with  John's  baptism,  but  this,  he  saySy. 


REBAPTISM  IN  SCRIPTURE  63 

■meant   merely    that    they    had    accepted    John's    doc- 

This  strange  opinion  was  also  accepted  by  Hein- 
rich  Bullinger,  the  successor  of  Zwingli  in  Zurich, 
.and  by  John  Calvin.  Through  the  latter's  influence  it 
has  found  its  way  into  some  of  the  modern  Bible 
Commentaries.  Bullinger  testified  that  he  formerly 
expounded  the  passage  in  question  differently,  but 
^now  believed  Zwingli's  opinion  to  be  correct.  "There- 
fore the  Anabaptists  have  no  testimony  of  holy 
Scripture  for  the  support  of  their  rebaptism,"  he 
^says.^^* 

Further  Zwingli  made  circumcision  the  basis  for 
an  argument.     He  says  in  December  1524: 

"We  do  not  find  in  the  New  Testament  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  commanded  or  forbidden.  For  the 
argument  which  they  advance  that  the  apostles  did 
not  baptize  infants,  therefore  they  should  not  be 
baptized,  is  worthless ;  or  else  I  should  also  argue : 
The  apostles  baptized  no  one  in  Calcutta,  therefore 
no  one  living  in  Calcutta  should  be  baptized.  There- 
fore it  is  needful  to  see  whether  anything  on  the 
point  in  question  may  be  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. We  find  nothing  of  baptism  [in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament], but  we  do  find  that  which  was  used  in  the 
place  of  baptism,  namely  circumcision.^*' 

Zwingli  based  his  defence  of  infant  baptism 
principally  on  the  Old  Testament  and  on  circumci- 
sion. The  question  why  those  who  were  baptized  by 
John,  as  well  as  some  of  the  earliest  Christian  con- 
verts from  Judaism,  continued  the  usage  of  circum- 
cision, as  they  did,  if  baptism,  as  practiced  by  John 


64  INFANT  BAPTISM 

and  in  the  early  Christian  church,  was  to  take  the 
place  of  this  rite,  is  not  touched  upon  by  him. 
Evidently  this  supposition  was  foreign  to  the  thought 
of  the  early  Christians.  (On  the  Anabaptists'  reply 
to  the  argument  based  on  circumcision  comp.  p.  43)^ 

Unlike  Luther,  Zwingli  believed  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Christian  parents  are  saved,  and  therefore^ 
he  argued,  they  should  be  baptized.  This  argument 
is  made  prominent  in  our  day  and  is  often  made  the 
sole  ground  for  infant  baptism.  Viewing  this  argu- 
ment at  close  range  shows  that  it  is  an  excuse  rather 
than  a  basis  for  the  baptism  of  infants.  The  de- 
fenders of  infant  baptism  who  take  this  ground  do, 
in  reality,  not  accept  the  premises  on  which  their 
conclusion  rests.  They  say :  Those  who  are  saved 
should  be  baptized;  children  of  Christian  parents 
are  saved ;  hence  they  should  be  baptized.  But  a 
little  questioning  shows  that  they  do  not  in  reality 
accept  the  first  of  their  premises.  They  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  fact  that  an  infant  is  saved  is  sufficient 
reason  why  he  should  be  baptized.  For  they  admit 
that  the  children  of  heathen  parents  also  are  saved^ 
but  nevertheless  would  not  baptize  them.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  Jesuit  missionaries  have  in  many  in- 
stances secretly  baptized  the  infant  children  of 
heathens,  and  from  the  Roman  Catholic  view-point 
this  usage  is  perfectly  consistent. 

If  we  ask  the  reason  why  those  who  advance  the 
said  argument  would  not  baptize  the  saved  infants 
of  heathen  parents,  we  are  told,  it  is  because  in  this 


MEANING  OF  BAPTISMAL  COMMISSION    65 

instance  baptism  would  be  meaningless,  since  in  all 
probability  these  children  will  grow  up  under  heath- 
enish instruction  and  influence.  The  real  reason, 
then,  why  they  baptize  the  infant  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  is,  because  it  is  believed  that  they  will 
at  some  future  time  receive  Christian  instruction. 
Plainly  this  is  not  a  scriptural  basis  for  baptism. 
The  fact  is  ignored  that  even  the  intended  instruc- 
tion as  such  would  not  qualify  for  membership  in  the 
church ;  the  necessary  requirement  is  acceptance  of 
the  truth — faith.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the 
thought  of  administering  baptism  on  the  supposition 
that  the  one  who  is  baptized  should  be  made  a 
church-member  at  some  distant  future  time,  was 
foreign  to  the  apostolic  age  as  well  as  to  the  period 
of  the  Reformation. 

Zwingli  inclined  to  the  view  that  "the  mothers 
who  brought  their  children  to  Jesus,  also  baptized 
them."^^®  Christ,  he  says  further,  has  commanded 
to  baptize  all  men  and  the  commission  to  baptize  is 
to  be  read  as  follows :  "Go  ye  and  make  disciples  of 
all  nations  (now  follows  how  they  should  be  made 
disciples),  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  (now  follows 

the  teaching)  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things, 
etc."i37 

This  interpretation  of  the  baptismal  commission. 
Matt.  28:19,  has  sometimes  been  read  into  the  Eng- 
lish translation  of  this  passage.  But  a  reference  to 
the  Greek  original  shows  that  .the  thought  is  not  to 


66  INFANT  BAPTISM 

make  disciples,  or  learners,  through  the  act  of  bap- 
tism, but  to  make  disciples  and  baptize  them ;  bap- 
tism following  the  teaching  or  discipling.  In  the 
original  the  pronoun  them  does  not  agree  gram- 
matically with  nations.  The  command  is  not  to  bap- 
tize the  nations,  but  to  teach  the  nations  and  baptize 
those  who  accept  the  truth.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  it  is  impossible  to  make  infants  disciples ; 
neither  can  adults  be  made  disciples  through  the  act 
of  baptism. ^^^ 

The  baptism  of  *1iouseholds"  recorded  in  Scrip- 
ture was  also  used  as  an  argument  for  infant  baptism 
by  Zwingli.  On  this  point  one  of  the  Anabaptist 
writers  says : 

We  have  in  the  Scriptures  record  of  four  house- 
holds that  have  been  baptized, ^"^  namely  that  of 
Cornelius,  of  the  jailor,  of  Lydia  and  of  Stephanas 
(Acts  10:48;  16:15,33;  I  Cor.  1:16)  and  the  Word 
clearly  shows  that  in  three  of  these  households  all 
were  believers,  namely  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10:2, 
44-47),  of  the  jailor  (Acts  16:34),  and  that  of 
Stephanas  (I  Cor.  16:15).  But  touching  the  house- 
hold of  Lydia,  the  reader  should  know  that  though 
the  Scriptures  say  nothing  definite  about  it,  it  is  not 
usual  in  Scripture,  nor  the  custom  of  the  world,  to 
■call  a  family  by  the  wife's  name  as  long  as  the  hus- 
band is  living.  Since  Luke  here  names  the  house  by 
a  woman  and  not  a  man,  reason  teaches  us  that 
Lydia  w^as  either  a  widow  or  a  virgin.  And  how 
much  is  to  be  made  of  the  supposition  that  there 
were  infants  in  her  household,  we  will  let  the  God- 
fearing reader  judge. ^** 


A   VALUELESS  ARGUMENT  67 

In  his  last  book  against  the  Anabaptists,  the 
Refutation  of  Anabaptist  Tricks,  written  in  1527, 
Zwingli  makes  the  doctrine  of  predestination  the 
foremost  argument  for  infant  baptism."^  Salvation, 
he  argues,  is  in  its  last  analysis  not  of  faith  but  of 
the  foreordination  of  God.  All  infants  in  the  Old 
Covenant,  he  says,  were  of  the  elect,  as  well  as  are 
all  children  of  Christian  parents,  and  hence  the  for- 
mer were  circumcised  and  the  latter  should  be  bap- 
tized. Zwingli  says:  *'In  this  way,  O  Anabaptists, 
all  your  foundation  has  fallen  away.  For  not  only 
believers  (as  you  would  understand  'believers'  in 
actuality)  are  the  sons  of  God,  but  those  also  who 
are  elect  are  sons  even  before  they  believe. "^*^ 

But,  strange  to  say,  Zwingli  asserted  that  not 
only  are  the  elect  the  sons  of  God  before  they  believe, 
but  those  adults  whose  life  shows  them  to  be  repro- 
bate, were  elect  while  they  were  in  their  infancy,  if 
they  were  born  of  Christian  parents;  and  hence  they 
should  be  baptized.  To  the  Anabaptists'  objection 
that  Esau  was  born  of  godly  parents,  and  yet  **was 
not  of  God's  people,"  Zwingli  answered :  ''If  Esau 
had  died  an  infant,  he  would  doubtless  have  been  of 
the  elect,"  for  he  was  "born  within  the  laws  of  the 
Covenant"  and  was  circumcised.  He  continues :  "In 
vain  do  we  say :  Would  that  he  had  died  in  his 
infancy !  He  could  not  die  whom  divine  Providence 
had  created  that  he  should  live  and  live  wickedly."^*^ 
In  other  words,  in  order  to  maintain  infant  baptism 
on  the  basis  of  predestination,  Zwingli  asserted  that 


68  INFANT  BAPTISM 

the  Esaus  whose  life  and  unbelief  indicates  that  they 
are  of  the  reprobate,  were  elect  while  they  were  in 
their  infancy  and  should  therefore  be  baptized.  Al- 
though they  were  predestinated  to  be  lost,  they  must 
nevertheless  he  considered  foreordained  for  eternal 
life  in  their  early  childhood.  Zwingli's  attempt  to 
make  predestination  a  basis  for  infant  baptism  was  a 
signal  failure. 


CHAPTER  IX 

BALTHASAR  HUBMAIER 

VS. 

ULRICH  ZWINGLI 

Dr.  Balthasar  Hubmaier^**  was  a  friend  of  and 
coworker  with  Zwingli  in  the  period  in  which  the 
latter  believed,  as  he  later  testified,  that  it  were  better 
to  abandon  infant  baptism.  Unwillingly  Hubmaier 
became  Zwingli's  opponent.  It  was  his  honest  con- 
viction, as  his  writings  show,  that  infant  baptism  is 
unscriptural,  and  at  the  time  of  his  imprisonment  in 
Zurich  he  testified  that  he  had  obtained  this  convic- 
tion through  the  influence  of  Zwingli  and  others.^" 
He  was  anxious  to  keep  Zwingli's  friendship,  but 
found  it  impossible  to  persuade  himself  that  he  could, 
against  his  own  better  knowledge,  abandon  the  posi- 
tion which  Zwingli  also  formerly  defended. 

Hubmaier's  conference  with  Zwingli  in  1523  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism  is  mentioned  elsewhere. 
(P.  83).  Toward  the  end  of  October,  1524,  on  his 
way  from  Schaflfhausen  to  Waldshut,  he  seems  to 
have  again  visited  Zwingli  at  Zurich  who  apparently 
promised  him  to  fully  set  forth  his  reasons  for  infant 


70  INFANT  BAPTISM 

baptism  in  a  letter.^*^  Somewhat  later,  probably 
about  the  middle  of  November,  when  evidently  the 
promised  letter  failed  to  come,  Hubmaier  wrote  in  a 
short  letter  to  Zwingli :  ''Write  me  for  God's  sake 
concerning  baptism."^*' 

At  the  occasion  of  the  first  great  discussion  be- 
tween Zwingli  and  the  Anabaptists  of  Zurich  (Jan- 
uary 17,  1525)  there  was  a  rumor  that  Hubmaier 
would  be  invited,  but  it  proved  unfounded.  Conrad 
Grebel  wrote  on  January  14,  to  Vadian  in  St.  Gall, 
informing  him  that  a  discussion  had  been  appointed 
at  Zurich  "for  all  who  are  for  or  against  infant  bap- 
tism." He  adds :  "Some  say  that  the  doctor  of 
Waldshut  [Hubmaier]  will  be  invited,  but  I  do  not 
believe  it,  for  he  is  against  Zwingli  on  the  question  of 
baptism  and  will  write  against  him  if  he  [Zwingli] 
persists."^*^  Hubmaier  was  not  invited  to  take  part 
in  this  debate. 

On  February  2,  1525,  Hubmaier  published  a 
leaflet  entitled  AxU  Open  Appeal  to  All  Christian  Be- 
lievers in  which  he  asked  any  one  who  believed  him- 
self able  to  do  so,  to  prove  "with  plain,  clear  Scrip- 
ture" that  infants  should  be  baptized,  while  at  the 
same  time  he  offered  to  show  infant  baptism  to  be 
"an  act  without  any  ground  in  the  divine  word."^*^ 
He  was  clearly  displeased  with  the  results  of  the 
recent  debate  as  published  by  the  (Zwinglian)  Coun- 
cil of  Zurich.  If  the  insistence  on  faith-baptism  was 
an  error,  as  Zwingli  and  the  Council  asserted,  was  it 
not  in  their  place  to  set  forth  the  Scripture  ground 


HUBMAIER  ANXIOUS  FOR  INSTRUCTION  71 

on  which  this  assertion  was  based?  Hubmaier  was 
one  of  the  most  prominent  men  of  the  ZwingHan 
party.  He  knew  that  his  possible  identification  with 
the  Anabaptists  was  a  matter  of  grave  concern  to 
Zwingli.  He  knew  also,  if  Zwingli  had  proved  in- 
fant baptism  to  be  scriptural,  he  would  be  quite  will- 
ing to  give  him  his  arguments.  He  evidently  hoped, 
if  Zwingli  would  not  decide  to  come  down  to  Wald- 
shut  for  an  effort  to  convince  him  of  the  scriptural- 
ness  of  his  new  position,  he  would  suggest  to  the 
Council  of  Zurich  to  grant  him  a  safe  conduct  that 
he  could  go  to  Zurich  for  a  discussion.  In  this  ex- 
pectation  Hubmaier  was  disappointed. 

In  April,  1525,  Hubmaier  was  baptized  by 
William  Roublin.^^^  He  laid  down  his  office  of  min- 
ister in  the  state-church.  He  organized  a  congrega- 
tion of  baptized  believers  who  elected  him  their  pas- 
tor.^^^  When  Zwingli's  Book  on  Baptism  appeared, 
early  in  June  in  the  same  year,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to 
write  a  reply  to  it,  although  it  was  doubtful  that  he 
would  find  a  printer.  Conrad  Grebel  had  found  it 
impossible  to  publish  his  defence  of  the  Anabaptist 
position. 

Reluctantly  Hubmaier  took  his  pen  to  contest 
Zwingli's  opinion.  He  still  hoped  that  the  scriptural 
truth  on  the  point  in  question  would  prove  acceptable 
to  the  reformer  of  Zurich.  Before  he  published  his 
book  on  Believers'  Baptism  he  made  another  earnest 
attempt  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  him.  On 
July   10,    1525,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Council  of 


72  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Zurich  asking  that  he  be  permitted  to  come  to  Zurich 
under  a  safe  conduct  to  discuss  the  question  of  bap- 
tism with  ZwingH.  In  this  letter  he  says,  he  had  read 
ZwingH's  recent  book  which  is  supposed  to  prove 
that  infants  should  be  baptized,  and  he  had  nearly 
completed  a  book  showing  that  they  should  not  be 
baptized.  Such  dissention,  Hubmaier  says  further,  is 
greatly  to  be  regretted,  "but  one  can  not  consent  to 
have  the  truth  so  seriously  maltreated."  "For  God's 
and  the  last  judgment's  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  the 
love  which  you  have  had  and  yet  have  for  the  divine 
word,"  he  begs  the  Council  to  arrange  for  a  discus- 
sion, either  private  or  public.     He  continues : 

"If  then  it  is  found  in  God's  Word  that  I  err,  I 
shall  from  my  heart  gladly  recant  and  shall  assist 
Master  Ulrich  [Zwingli]  to  defend  and  preach  his 
opinion.  But  if  it  should  be  made  clear  that  Master 
Ulrich  has  missed  the  mark  in  the  matter  of  infant 
baptism,  he  should  not  be  ashamed  to  abstain  from 
it,  for  the  truth  will  certainly  prevail  in  the  end. 
Indeed  Peter,  even  after  he  had  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  erred  and  did  not  walk  after  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  whence  he  was  rebuked  of  Paul,  Gal.  2:11-15. 
Hence  he  [Zwingli]  should  not  complain  if  he  fare 
no  better.  We  are  all  fallible  men.  If  one  err  today, 
the  other  may  stumble  tomorrow.  It  is  for  our  good, 
that  we  may  humble  ourselves  before  God.  Gracieu«^, 
dear  Lords,  I  admonish,  ask,  and  beg  of  you  again 
for  God's  sake  that  you  bring  me  to  Master  Ulrich. — 
I  hope  to  God  we  shall,  if  we  have  a  personal  discus- 
sion, soon  come  to  an  agreement  in  this  matter,  for 
I  am  ready  to  give  way  to  the  clear  and  plain  word 
of  God  and  to  give  God  the  honor,  and  I  believe  my 


TESTIMONY  TO  HUBMAIER'S  INFLUENCE  7Z 

dear  brother  Ulrich  Zwingli  will  take  the  same  atti- 
tude. Farewell  in  the  Lord  and  grant  me,  for  God's 
sake  a  gracious  answer."^^^ 

Hubmaier's  urgent  appeal  was  in  vain.  The 
Council  of  Zurich,  as  well  as  Zwingli,  had  ere  this 
decided  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  in- 
dispensible  for  the  prosperity  of  the  church. 

To  Zwingli 's  dismay  Hubmaier  found  it  possible 
to  have  his  book  The  Christian  Baptism  of  Believers 
printed,  not  in  Switzerland,  however,  but  at  Stras- 
burg.  This  is  one  of  the  best  written  and  most  lucid 
books  of  the  Reformation  period.  Berthold  Haller 
wrote,  on  November  29,  1525,  to  Zwingli,  complain- 
ing that  "Hubmaier's  plain  presentation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures seduces  many."^^^  When  in  the  summer  of 
1527  the  report  was  heard  that  Hubmaier  was  burned 
at  the  stake,  CEcolampad  wrote  to  Zwingli :  ''As  long 
as  his  book  continues  to  live,  we  must  not  be  silent 
until  this  also  is  burned  to  ashes  by  the  iirse  of  the 
Word."^^*  In  his  Instruction  Concerning  Anabaptism 
CEcolampad  says,  after  referring  to  the  report  con- 
cerning Hubmaier's  death :  "But  since  among  his 
disciples  his  books  are  yet  alive,  it  behooves  us  not  to 
be  silent  concerning  this  matter,  for  his  writings  may 
prove  more  harmful  than  his  life."^^^ 

Zwingli's  reply  to  this  book  bears  the  date  of 
November  5,  1525.  He  censures  Hubmaier  severely 
for  defending  Anabaptism  in  this  way.  "If  you  were 
willing  to  be  instructed  with  Scripture,"  says  Zwingli, 
"'why  did  you  accept  Anabaptism  before  you  had  re- 


74  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ceived  such  instruction  P^^^  —  I  had  expected,  if 
others  would  write  against  me  and  I  were  sick  or 
dead,  he  would  fight  for  me."'^^  Zwingli  ignored 
Hubmaier's  earnest  appeals  for  instruction  from 
Scripture  on  the  point  in  question. 

For  the  great  discussion  on  baptism  held  in 
November,  1525,  Hubmaier  undertook  the  journey  to 
Zurich,  although  he  knew  that  Anabaptism  was 
severely  persecuted  in  that  domain.  He  did  not 
reach  the  city,  however,  being  compelled  to  return 
to  Waldshut  for  the  reason  that  the  country  was 
infested  with  Austrian  troops  from  whom  he  had  a 
narrow  escape. 

The  assertion  found  in  a  few  modern  works  that 
Hubmaier  was  at  the  time  of  his  imprisonment  at 
Zurich  (toward  the  end  of  the  same  year),  com- 
pelled against  his  will  to  discuss  baptism  with  Zwing- 
li, is  unfounded.  The  Zwinglian  theologian  George 
Binder  testifies  that  Hubmaier  as  a  prisoner  addressed 
a  humble  and  urgent  petition  to  the  Council  to  ar- 
range for  a  discussion  with  Zwingli, ^^^  and  Johannes 
Kessler  also  relates  that  he  made  such  a  request.^^^ 
The  petition  was  now  granted,  but  Hubmaier  com- 
plains bitterly  of  the  treatment  which  he  received  at 
ZwingH's  hands  in  this  debate;  in  fact  he  held  that 
the  one-sided  discussion  which  he  had  with  Zwingli 
did  not  deserve  the  name  of  a  debate.^^^  This  com- 
plaint is  substantiated  by  Zwingli  himself  who  wrote 
to  Peter  Gynoraus  on  August  31,  1526: 

"When  I  came  to  I  Cor.  10,  'All  our  fathers  were 


''ACTS  OF  EXEGETICAL  VIOLENCE"    75 

baptized  unto  Moses'  etc.,  and  would  have  him  ac- 
knowledge that  infants  were  included  [in  other 
words,  that  the  apostle  in  the  said  passage  records  an 
instance  of  infant  baptism]  even  though  the  infants 
are  not  expressly  mentioned,  and  when  he  was  un- 
willing to  say  whether  or  not  this  was  the  case,  I 
confess  that  I  went  for  the  man  too  roughly. "^^^ 
Hence  Hubmaier  declined  to  confer  further  with 
Zwingli ;  he  requested  to  discuss  the  question  with 
Jud,  Myconius  and  Hofmeister  alone.  At  a  later 
date  he  writes  to  Zwingli :  "You  know  how  you  and 
your  city  of  Zurich  have  treated  me ;  it  were  no 
wonder  if  the  stones  would  cry  out  concerning  it."^^^ 
A  comparison  of  Zwingli's  arguments  for  infant 
baptism  with  Hubmaier's  masterly  defence  of  be- 
lievers' baptism  will  shed  light  on  the  question  why 
the  Anabaptist  cause  progressed  on  every  hand. 
Usteri  (himself  a  Zwinghan)  says:  "The  endeavor 
to  justify  infant  baptism  as  altogether  scriptural  mis- 
led ZwingH  to  various  acts  of  exegetical  violence."^^^ 
"It  is  now  almost  unanimously  admitted  that  in  this 
controversy  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  were 
only  apparently  silenced,  not  refuted,"  says  Friedrich 
Nippold,  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Jena;  "Zwingli  and  Luther  saw  themselves 
compelled,  in  view  of  the  objections  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, to  modify  their  original  opinion  whose  con- 
sequences clearly  favored  the  view  of  the  Anabap- 
tists."^^* Walter  Kohler,  one  of  the  editors  of  the 
new  edition  of  Zwingli's  works  says :  "In  the  last 
analysis  he  could  maintain  infant  baptism  only  as  a 


76  INFANT  BAPTISM 

concession  to  human  weakness  and  historical  develop- 
ment."^^^     Again  Usteri  says  appropriately: 

''Hubmaier's  book  Of  the  Christian  Baptism  of 
Believers  demonstrated  clearly  that  a  direct  Scrip- 
ture proof  for  infant  baptism  can  not  be  given.  In 
contrast  with  Zwingli's  sophistry  it  affords  a  peculiar 
satisfaction  to  see  how  clearly,  transcendently  and 
harmoniously  Hubmaier  arranges  the  abundant  proof- 
texts  (Beweismaterial)  around  his  definition  of  bap- 
tism. The  true  scriptural  order,  he  points  out,  is 
none  other  than  this:  1  preaching;  2  hearing;  3 
faith;  4  baptism;  5  works.  The  scientific  exegesis 
of  later  times  has  in  the  main  taken  Hubmaier's  part, 
while  Glider  opines  that  Zwingli  saw  himself  com- 
pelled to  resort  to,  we  should  not  like  to  say  know- 
ingly sophistical,  but  certainly  violent  exegesis. "'^^ 

Other  historians  also  say  that  Zwingli  failed  to  estab- 
lish infant  baptism  as  scriptural. ^^'^ 

Zwingli,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  reply  to  the 
said  book  of  Hubmaier,  says : 

''Your  almanac  in  which  you  set  the  saints  in 
this  order:  preaching,  hearing,  faith,  baptism,  works, 
will  not  avail  you.  —  And  therefore  I  shall  make  for 
you  another  almanac  for  the  present  year  in  which,  if 
God  will,  your  goose-washing  shall  cease,  namely 
[this  is  the  order  of  the  saints  in  my  almanac]  : 
1  The  rich,  almighty  God,  2  Will  be  Abraham's  God, 
3  Who  shall  walk  uprightly  before  him ;  4  He  is  also 
the  God  of  his  seed;  5  He  has  promised  the  Saviour 
in  the  covenant;  6  In  the  covenant  infants  and  adults 
were  circumcised. "^^^ 

Needless  to  say  that  Zwingli's  "almanac  for  the 
present  year"  was  not  sufficient  to  convince  the  Ana- 


AN   UNEQUAL    COMBAT  77 

baptists  of  the  validity  of  infant  baptism.  (Concern- 
ing their  reply  to  the  argument  based  on  cireumcision 
compare  p.  43).  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  a  few 
of  Zwingli's  friends  and  coworkers,  besides  those 
who  identified  themselves  with  the  Anabaptists,  found 
it  impossible  to  accept  his  arguments  as  convincing. 
Leo  Jud,  his  most  notable  associate  in  Zurich,  for 
considerable  time  made  no  secret  of  the  grave  doubts 
which  he  entertained  concerning  the  validity  of  infant 
baptism.^®^  And  the  Zwinglian  reformer  Wolfgang 
Capito  of  Strasburg  for  a  time  openly  favored  its 
abolition.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  Zwing- 
li's arguments  made  no  impression  on  the  Anabap- 
tists, and  his  assertion  that  he  had  overcome  them  in 
debate  was  so  much  more  peculiar,  as  they  were  not 
permitted  to  present  their  arguments  in  print. 

Hubmaier  was  the  ablest  defender  of  believers' 
baptism.  "In  point  of  scholarship  and  concentrative- 
ness  he  surpassed  his  opponents,  such  as  Zwingli.  by 
far,"  says  the  Protestant  historian  Loserth,^^^  and 
Hegler  recognizes  that  *'in  Scripture  proof  and  partly 
also  in  formal  consequence  Hubmaier  was  Zwingli's 
superior."^^^  "On  the  basis  of  his  own  premises 
Zwingli  was  opposed  by  his  former  associates,"  says 
Loserth,  "and  only  by  carrying  the  conflict  over  into 
the  political  field  was  he  able  to  hold  his  own.  With 
fire  and  the  sword  he  overcame  the  dissenters  or  ex- 
pelled them  from  the  land."^^^  Hubmaier,  after  de- 
scribing the  cruel  measures  of  persecution  enacted, 
with   Zwingli"s    consent,    against   the    Anabaptists    in 


78  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Zurich,  says:  "These  are  the  weapons  by  which 
Zwingli  has  overcome  the  Anabaptists,  as  he  falsely 
calls  them,  although  he  persistently  boasts  that  he 
has  done  it  with  Scripture. — I  have  heard  many  who 
could  bring  forth  no  other  argument  to  protect  their 
ungodly  infant  baptism,  than  to  say:  Well,  Zwingli 
has  maintained  it  with  Scripture;  and  if  they  are 
asked,  with  what  Scripture,  they  can  not  point  to 
one.""8 


CHAPTER  X 

A   DISCUSSION    ON    BAPTISM    BETWEEN 
HUBMAIER   AND   ZWINGLI 

It  has  been  pointed  out  above  that  Hubmaier's 
desire  for  a  pubHc  discussion  with  Zwingli  was  never 
granted.  Zwingli  boasted  often  that  he  had  refuted 
and  silenced  the  Anabaptists  in  every  debate.  Hub- 
maier  at  last  decided  to  write  a  book  quoting  Zwing- 
li's  arguments  for  infant  baptism  and  adding  his 
reply.  In  this  way  he,  as  it  were,  compelled  Zwingli 
to  a  public  discussion.  He  published  this  book  under 
the  title :  A  Dialogue  BcHvcen  Balthasar  Hubmaier 
and  Ulrich  Zwingli  on  Infant  Baptism,  Based  on 
Zzvingli's  Book  on  Baptism}"^^  Following  is  a  part; 
of  this  debate  between  Zwingli  and  Hubmaier. 

Zzvingli.  —  To  baptize  as  do  the  Anabaptists  is 
heresy,  that  is  division  and  separation.  (231). 

Hubmaier.  —  Consider  well  your  words,  friend 
Zwingli.  For  if  to  baptize  the  instructed  and  the 
believers  is  heresy,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  the  first 
heresiarch.  He  has  ordered  that  there  shruld  be 
preaching,  then  faith,  then  baptism.  (Matt.  28:19,20; 
Mark  16:14,15).  And  the  apostles  also  v/ho  have 
followed  this  order  must  be   heretics.      (Acts,   chap- 


80  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ters  2,  8,  10,  11,  16,  19).     May  every  earnest  Chris- 
tian read  these  chapters  and  then  judge. 

Zzmngli.  —  You  reject  infant  baptism  that  you 
may  have  an  excuse  to  rebaptize.   (231). 

Huhmaier.  —  You  continually  accuse  us  of  re- 
baptism  and  have  never  proved  with  a  word  that 
infant  baptism  is  baptism.  Here  you  wince  and 
writhe  this  way  and  that,  but  are  not  able  to  bring 
forth  clear  Scripture.  Remember  what  you  said  in 
your  debate  with  John  Fabri  [the  Vicar  General  of 
Constance]  ^'5  and  afterwards  pubHshed  in  your  fif- 
teenth Thesis,^^^  namely  that  all  pertinent  truth  is 
clearly  found  in  God's  Word.  If  now  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism  is  truth,  show  it  in  the  plain  Word 
of  God.  Show  it  to  us  for  God's  sake.  Do  it,  do 
not  forget  it;  or  the  Vicar  will  complain  that  you 
have  used  a  sword  against  him  which  you  now  lay 
aside,  and  that  you  can  not  endure  the'  attack  with 
this  sword. 

Zwingli.  —  I  know  that  they  are  refuted  with 
the  doctrine  and  today  stand  vanquished.   (234). 

Huhmaier.  —  Now  tell  me  for  once,  with  what 
doctrine?  Or  you  will  have  to  hear  the  words  which 
were  addressed  to  Fabri  at  Zurich:  'The  sword 
which  pierced  the  pastor  of  Fislibach,  now  a  prisoner 
at  Constance,  has  got  stuck  in  its  scabbard."^"  Just 
so,  your  spear  with  which  you  have  overcome '  the 
Anabaptists  does  not  come  forth.  ''Answer  and 
argue  with  clear  Scripture;  say,  here  it  is  written. 
It  is  befitting  a  scholar  to  defend  his  opinion  by  the 
Scriptures. "^^^  In  this  manner  you  addressed  Fabri 
at  Zurich. 

Zwingli.  —  You  say,  nothing  should  be  added  to 
God's  Word.  Now  I  ask  you,  where  is  it  written 
that  infants  should  not  be  baptized?     If  you  can  not 


DEBATE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  81 

show  it  and  yet  would  reject  infant  baptism,  you  add 
to  the  Word.  (236). 

Hubmaier.  —  O  the  cunning  tricks  by  which 
you  would  deceive  the  simple.  My  Zwingli,  I  am 
surprised  that  you  are  not  ashamed  of  such  pranks. 
Or,  do  you  suppose  they  will  not  be  recognized  as 
such?  But  you  have  learned  this  of  Fabri  who  said, 
the  usages  and  commandments  of  the  church  which 
men  have  made  are  not  against  God,  etc.  To  this 
you  answered:  "Sir  Vicar,  prove  that"^'^^  and  you 
quoted  the  words  of  Christ,  Matt.  15:9,  in  which  he 
rejects  the  teachings  and  commandments  of  men.  ■  — 
Mark  here,  friend  Zwingli,  that  you  are  out  of  place 
to  ask  us  where  infant  baptism  is  forbidden,  for 
Christ  says  not  in  this  chapter,  "Every  plant  which 
my  heavenly  Father  has  forbidden  shall  be  rooted 
up,"  but  he  says,  "Every  plant  which  my  heavenly 
Father  has  not  planted  shall  be  rooted  up."  Now  it 
is  in  your  place  to  show  clearly  from  the  Scriptures 
that  God  has  planted  infant  baptism,  or  it  must  be 
rooted  up.  If  you  would  maintain  infant  baptism 
without  proving  that  it  is  planted  of  God,  it  is  you 
who  adds  to  God's  Word,  and  not  we. 

Zwingli.  —  He  who  through  baptism  surrenders 
himself  to  God,  desires  to  hear  his  word,  to  learn  his 
will  and  to  walk  in  accordance  with  it.   (239). 

Hubmaier.  —  Has  a  new-born  infant  such  a 
desire?  You  must  confess,  no.  Why,  then,  do  you 
l)aptize  it?  You  say,  the  desire  will  come  in  about 
seven  years.  Well  said ;  then  wait  with  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism  till  he  has  the  desire.  This 
would  be  consistent  with  your  own  statement. 

Zzmngli.  —  There  is  no  distinction  between  the 
Ijaptism  of  John  and  that  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
(240). 


82  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Huhmaier.  —  You  assert  what  you  can  never 
prove.  It  is  all  the  same  water,  but  not  the  same 
baptism.  For  through  John's  baptism  those  who 
were  baptized  acknowledged  themselves  as  sinners 
and  confessed  their  sins.  (Matt.  3:6).  Through  the 
baptism  of  Christ  those  who  are  baptized  confess 
forgiveness  of  their  sins,  which  forgiveness  took 
place  through  faith  before  baptism  is  administered.. 
(Acts,  chapters  2,  8,  16). 

Zwingli.  —  Water-baptism  without  instruction 
and  without  the  Spirit  was  administered  by  the  dis- 
ciples, Joh.  4:2  and  I  Cor.  1:17.   (241). 

Huhmaier.  —  This  is  said  too  much.  You  can 
not  point  to  one  person  in  all  Scripture  who  was 
baptized  without  preceding  instruction.  Or,  show  us 
one  with  clear  Scripture  and  you  have  won  the  day. 

Zwingli.  —  That  baptism  was  administered  to 
those  who  did  not  believe  is  evident  from  John  6:66, 
for  of  the  disciples  who  "went  back  and  walked  no 
more  with  him"  there  was  quite  probably  none  un- 
baptized,  and  yet  Christ  rebuked  their  unbelief. 
(241). 

Huhmaier.  —  O  the  cunning  wiles !  Do  you  not 
fear  God,  or  do  you  think  he  does  not  know  and  we 
do  not  understand  it?  I  ask  you  also  one  thing: 
Did  Peter,  John  and  Andrew  believe  at  the  time  of 
the  institution  of  the  Supper?  You  say,  yes,  as  you 
must,  and  yet  Christ  rebuked  their  unbelief  (Mark 
16:14).  O  Zwingli,  Zwingli,  I  recognize  where  tlie 
shoe  pinches  you.     No  more  of  this. 

Zzmngli.  —  The  thief  on  the  cross  believed  and 
was  on  the  same  day  with  Christ  in  Paradise  and 
was  never  baptized  with  any  external  baptism.  (242). 

Huhmaier.  —  With  this  argument  you  would 
quite  upset  the  baptism  of  Christ.     But  I  tell  you: 


DEBATE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  83 

Whoever  has  the  excuse   of   the  thief   on   the   cross, 
with  him  God  is  well  satisfied,  if  he  is  not  baptized. 

Zwingli.  —  This  error  has  also  misled  me  a  few 
years  ago,  that  I  Vv'as  of  the  opinion,  it  were  far 
better  to  baptize  the  children  only  after  they  had 
come  to  a  goodly  age.    (245). 

Hiibmaier.  —  Yes,  this  was  your  opinion ;  you 
have  set  forth  this  view  in  writing  and  have  preached 
it  from  the  pulpit ;  many  hundreds  of  people  have 
heard  it  out  of  your  own  mouth.  But  now  all  must 
be  liars  who  say  this  of  you ;  yes  you  have  the 
courage  to  say  that  you  never  entertained  this  opin- 
ion. But  I  ask  you  also  one  thing:  How  many  years 
ago  did  you  have  this  opinion?  Remember,  when 
you  had  the  debate  with  John  Fabri,  the  Vicar  Gen- 
eral of  Constance,  you  said  in  public  that  you  had 
preached  the  gospel,  pure  and  unadulterated,  for  five 
.years.  This  was  in  1523,  and  in  the  same  year,  about 
the  day  of  Philip  and  James,  I  personally  conferred 
with  you  on  the  moat  of  Zurich  upon  the  Scriptures 
relative  to  baptism.  Then  and  there  you  agreed  with 
me  in  the  opinion  that  children  should  not  be  bap- 
tized before  they  were  instructed  in  the  faith ;  you 
said  this  was  the  custom  in  times  of  yore,  therefore 
such  were  called  catechumens.  You  promised  to 
mention  this  in  your  forthcoming  book,  as  you  also 
did  in  Article  XVIII  on  Confirmation. ^^^  Any  one 
<:an  read  it  and  find  your  opinion  clearly  expressed. 
Sebastian  Ruckensperger  of  St.  Gall,  at  that  time 
Prior  of  the  cloister  Sion  at  Klingnau,  was  present. 
Also  in  your  little  book  Of  Those  Who  Cause  Dis- 
turbance pubHshed  in  1525.  you  confessed  openly  that 
those  who  baptize  infants  can  quote  no  clear  word  of 
Scripture  bidding  them  to  baptize  them.^^^  From  this 
learn,  friend  Zwingli,  how  your  words,  writing  and 


84  INFANT  BAPTISM 

preaching  agree.  But  may  God  enlighten  you  and  us 
all,  that  you  may  cease  from  your  violent  measures 
against  many  pious  people. 

Zzmngli.  —  Baptism  is  a  sign  or  rite  laying  obli- 
gations on  those  who  accept  it  and  indicating  that 
they  desire  to  mend  their  lives  and  follow  Christ. 
(246) 

Hubmaier.  —  God  be  praised.  The  truth  has  at 
last  come  to  the  light. 

Zwlngli.  —  With  the  words  Matt.  28:19:  "Go 
ye  into  all  the  world  and  teach  all  nations"  the  Ana- 
baptists deceive  themselves  and  others,  insisting  that 
teaching  is  to  precede  baptism,  but  they  will  not  con- 
sider that  after  the  command  to  baptize  we  have 
again  the  words,  "Teach  them"  etc.    (246). 

Hubmaier.  —  Well,  Zwingli,  let  us  make  an 
agreement.  I  shall  not  object  to  your  teaching  after 
baptism  and  you  permit  me  to  teach  before  baptism. 
If  you  consent  to  this,  the  question  is  settled.  Teach- 
ing before  baptism  will  make  your  way  to  baptize 
impossible.  —  It  is  true  that  the  commandment  is  to 
teach  both  before  and  after  baptism.  The  reason  is: 
It  does  not  suffice  to  have  Pharao  drowned  in  the 
Red  Sea,  there  remain  the  Amalekites,  Amorites, 
Jebusites  and  many  other  enemies  and  hence  teaching 
is  necessary  after  baptism. 

Zwingli.  —  The  word  teach  is  in  Greek  mat  he- 
teusate  which  means  to  make  disciples,  as  well  as  to 
teach.  (247). 

Hubmaier.  —  Making  disciples  includes  teaching. 
This  even  the  young  pupils  know. 

Zwingli.  —  This  is  the  true  meaning  of  these 
verses :  Go  ye  and  make  all  nations  disciples  (now 
follows  the  first  step,  how  they  should  be  made  dis- 
ciples)  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father^ 


DEBATE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  85 

etc.,    (finally   follows  the  teaching)   teaching  them  to 
observe,  etc.   (247). 

Huhmaier.  —  You  violate  and  distort  Scripture. 
For  the  first  step  is  to  make  disciples,  as  you  express 
it.  Now  disciples  are  made  by  teaching.  Secondly, 
those  who  accept  the  teaching,  and  who  believe  and 
desire  to  be  henceforth  Christ's  disciples,  are  bap- 
tized and  through  baptism  they  accept  the  duty  to 
better  their  lives  and  follow  Christ,  as  you  yourself 
have  said  above.  Thirdly,  since  imperfection  of  faith 
remains  and  shall  remain  unto  death,  it  is  necessary, 
never  to  cease  teaching  after  baptism,  that  faith  may 
be  increased  and  grow  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed. 
This  is  the  real  meaning  and  order  of  this  Scripture, 
■no  matter  how  you  would  force  it. 

Zzvingli.  —  The  Anabaptists  quote  Matt.  3  :1  and 
say:  "Do  you  not  see  that  John  first  preached  and 
then  baptized?"  Our  reply  is,  that  we  do  the  same, 
for  parents  do  not  bring  their  child  for  baptism  un- 
less they  are  first  taught.   (250). 

Huhmaier.  —  In  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew 
there  is  nothing  said  of  bringing  infants.  It  is  writ- 
ten that  John  preached  and  those  who  accepted  his 
word  he  baptized.  Note,  he  baptized  those  who  ac- 
cepted his  preaching,  not  their  infants. 

Zzvingli.  —  We  willingly  admit  that  John  first 
taught  and  then  baptized,  but  no  one  can  deny  that 
those  who  were  instructed  by  him  also  brought  their 
uninstructed  children  for  baptism.    (250). 

Huhmaier.  —  O  friend  Zwingli,  how  dare  you 
say  John  baptized  uninstructed  children,  contrary  to 
the  plain  and  clear  text.  Matt.  3 :6,  which  distinctly 
shows  that  those  who  were  baptized  by  John  con- 
fessed their  sins.  O  reader,  read  the  text  for  your- 
self and  judge. 


86  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Zwingli.  —  Now  comes  the  strongest  Scripture 
which  teaches  us  that  baptism  is  a  rite  indicating  a 
beginning^*-  through  which  we  accept  the  obligation 
imposed  upon  us  by  God  to  live  a  new  life ;  in  wit- 
ness thereof  we  receive  baptism.  This  Scripture  is 
found  in  Rom.  6:3-11.    (253). 

Hubmaier.  —  The  strongest  Scripture  is  clearly 
against  you;  this  1  shall  establish  with  your  own 
words  and  with  the  words  of  Paul.  You  yourself 
confess  that  baptism  is  a  rite  through  which  we  ac- 
cept the  obligation  to  a  new  life.  Mark,  you  say,  we, 
we,  we ;  not  others  in  our  stead.  And  you  say,  we 
receive  baptism  as  a  testimony.  The  crying  infant 
in  the  cradle  knows  nothing  whatever  of  obligation, 
baptism,  new  life,  or  testimony.  Secondly,  Paul  sets 
forth  in  this  chapter  the  meaning  of  baptism.  Now 
any  infant  who  knows  the  meaning  of  baptism  and 
is  willing  to  accept  its  obligations  and  to  confess  his 
faith  before  the  church,  desiring  to  be  baptized  and 
received  into  the  church  —  such  an  infant  should  be 
baptized.  But  so  long  as  this  is  not  the  case,  do  not 
proceed  to  baptize  him.  Read  this  chapter  and  see 
whether   Paul   writes   here   to   infants   in   the   cradle. 

Zunngli.  —  A  man  may  well  be  conformed  to 
Christ's  image  though  he  was  never  rebaptized.  (254) 

Hubmaier.  —  You  accuse  us  continually  of  re- 
baptizing,  but  have  never  shown  that  the  rite  per- 
formed on  infants  is  baptism. 

Zwingli.  —  I  can  not  understand  the  Anabap- 
tists otherwise  than  that  they  make  too  much  of  bap- 
tism.  (258). 

Hubmaier.  —  We  do  not  ascribe  to  baptism  any- 
thing except  that  it  is  an  institution  of  Christ  through 
which  we  are  received  into  the  organized  Christian 
church  and  which  every  one  who  believes  will  accept, 


DEBATE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  87 

if  opportunity  presents.  Christ  has  instituted  it,  the 
apostles  have  administered  it,  and  the  beUevers  re- 
ceived it  as  such.  Here  I  appeal  to  the  Scriptures 
throughout ;    let  them  be  the  judge. 

Zzvingli.  —  Neither  I  nor  any  one  has  clear 
Scripture  ground  to  assert  that  infant  baptism  is 
another  baptism  than  the  one  true  baptism  of  Christ. 
Just  so,  many  other  things  are  not  expressly  men- 
tioned in  Scripture  and  nevertheless  are  not  against 
but  for  God.   (280). 

Hubmaier.  —  Silence,  silence,  friend  Zwingli ; 
Fabri  of  Constance  hears  you.  This  was  his  opinion 
at  Zurich  in  the  debate,  but  you  would  not  accept  it. 
You  demanded  clear  Scripture  of  him,  and  rightfully. 

Zwingli.  —  We  let  the  women  take  part  in  the 
Supper,  but  do  not  read  that  women  were  present  at 
Christ's  Supper.   (280). 

Hubmaier.  —  You  remind  me  here  of  a  point 
which  I  had  almost  forgotten.  I  must  tell  it  into 
your  ear.  Friend  Zwingli,  all  arguments  which  you 
advance  for  baptizing  infants  would  also  compel  you 
to  let  them  partake  of  the  Supper.  For  they  are 
God's  and  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  you 
say.  You  assert  that  there  were  infants  among  the 
three  thousand  that  were  baptized  on  one  day;  then 
they  must  also  have  been  among  them  in  the  break- 
ing of  the  bread  (Acts  2:46).  Moreover,  it  is  no- 
where forbidden  by  Christ  that  the  Bohemians  should 
bring  their  infants  to  the  Supper.^^^ 

Zzinngli.  —  What  I  have  ever  said,  I  shall  say 
until  death  and  it  will  never  be  found  otherwise  than 
that  I  say  the  same  thing.   (281). 

Hubmaier.  —  I  offer  to  show  openly  by  your 
own  printed  books  that  you  again  and  again  have 
spoken  differently. 


88  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Zwingli.  —  Concerning  infant  baptism  we  ask 
you  for  God's  sake  to  say  as  follows :  Since  God  has 
commanded  to  baptize,  do  not  say :  But  not  the 
infants.   (281). 

Hiibmaier.  —  And  we  ask  you,  for  God's  sake  to 
say  as  follows :  God  has  commanded  to  baptize  those 
who  are  instructed  in  his  word  and  believe. 

Zwingli.  —  Why  do  you  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween people?  Are  infants  people,  or  not?  If  they 
are  men,  or  people,  you  must  have  them  baptized.^^* 
(281). 

Hubmaier.  —  This  argument  is  not  to  the  point, 
for  it  proves  as  much  for  Turks  as  for  the  infants 
of  Christian  parents.  Turks  also  are  people.  Christ 
has  commanded  to  baptize  believing  people. 

Zzvingli.  —  We  demand  of  the  Anabaptists  to 
show  us  clear  Scripture  forbidding  the  baptism  of 
infants.   (281). 

Hubmaier.  —  And  I  demand  of  you  to  show  me 
clear  Scripture  forbidding  the  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
cloisters,  cowls,  tonsure,  mass,  etc. 

Zzmngli.  —  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians,  I 
Cor.  7:12-14,  that  a  brother  whose  wife  does  not  be- 
lieve, should  not  leave  her;  he  says,  ''Else  were  your 
children  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy."  It  is 
known  to  every  one  that  holy  in  the  language  of  Paul 
and  the  early  Christians  means  believing,  for  they 
spoke  of  those  who  served  God  as  the  saints.   (291). 

Hubmaier.  —  Here,  friend  Zwingli,  you  assert 
that  the  infants  should  be  baptized  being  holy.  And 
you  say  further  that  it  is  generally  known  that  holy 
is  used  for  believing.  It  would  follow  that  the  in- 
fants beheve,  but  this  you  have  until  now  always 
denied.  Secondly,  since  you,  on  the  ground  that  Paul 
speaks  of   the   children  of  believers  as  holy,   would 


DEBATE  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM  89 

justify  infant  baptism,  you  must,  on  the  same  ground 
also  baptize  the  unbeHeving  husband  of  a  beHeving 
wife,  for  Paul  in  this  place  says  expressly  that  he  is 
holy,  as  well  as  the  child.  If  in  this  passage  holy 
means  believing,  then  the  unbelieving  husband  is  a 
believer.  Take  notice,  reader,  how  we  fare  if  we 
accept  conclusions  of  this  sort.  It  is  clear  that  holy 
in  this  instance  does  not  stand  for  believing. 

Zzvingli.  —  That  infants  have  faith,  I  can  not 
accept,  though  there  are  those  who  defend  this  opin- 
ion.    It  is  ungrounded.   (292). 

Hiibmaier.  —  But  you  have  said  above :  Paul 
speaks  of  the  Christians'  children  as  holy,  holy  is 
believing,  hence  they  must  be  believing.  Take  notice 
of  your  own  words.  Read  your  own  book.  I  do  not 
misquote  you. 

Consider  for  the  last  judgment's  sake  your 
course,  my  dear  Zwingli.  Acknowledge  your  error. 
Cease  your  empty  talk.  Give  God  the  honor.  Con- 
fess the  truth ;  you  are  its  captive  and  shall  not 
escape  it.  Defend  the  truth  openly  and  frankly  and 
speak  of  it  as  you  did  two  years  ago.  Save  yourself 
and  your  city  from  shame.  You  know  indeed  that 
the  truth  will  finally  prevail  and  triumph.  Remem- 
ber that  Peter  also  stumbled  and  walked  not  accord- 
ing to  the  truth  of  the  gospel  (Gal.  2:14).  Paul  and 
Barnabas  disagreed.  If  you  have  failed,  it  was  for 
your  own  and  our  good,  that  you  may  not  be  over- 
bearing and  we  may  not  depend  upon  men,  but 
humble  ourselves  under  the  mighty  word  of  God  and 
no  longer  follow  our  own  opinion.  Also  make  an 
end  to  the  pitiful  imprisonment  and  exile  of  the 
devoted  brethren  and  sisters,  to  their  banishment, 
incarceration,  torture,  drowning  and  the  like,  all  of 
which  you  can  easily  do  if  again  you  give  place  to 


90  INFANT  BAPTISM 

God's  clear  truth.  If  you  had  preached  and  baptized 
or  sanctioned  baptism  according  to  the  order  of 
Christ,  there  would  have  been  no  need  for  others  to 
begin  it ;  but  since  you  and  those  with  you  kept 
silence,  at  last  the  stones  must  cry  out  for  again 
establishing  the  true  baptism  of  Christ.  My  dear 
Zwingli,  do  it  for  God's  and  for  the  truth's  sake,  and 
the  issue  will  soon  be  settled.  May  God  grant  you 
his  grace  and  assist  you  that  you  may  again,  as 
formerly,  set  forth  his  clear,  plain  word  and  follow 
its  teaching.  May  he,  the  all-loving,  merciful  Father 
in  heaven,  grant  this  to  you  and  us  all  through  Jesus 
Christ  his  beloved  Son,  our  only  Redeemer.  Amen. 
Dear  Zwingli,  you  see  that  I  have  quoted  your 
words  as  you  have  written  them  in  public  print ;  you 
will  admit  that  I  have  not  misquoted  you.  And  if 
you  desire,  write  a  reply,  and  with  God's  help  I  shall 
faithfully  answer  you.  For  you  know  how  you  and 
your  city  of  Zurich  have  acted  in  this  matter;  it  were 
no  wonder  if  the  stones  would  speak  of  it.  But  if 
you  desire  an  oral,  public  discussion  with  me,  I 
would  herewith  (with  the  permission  of  the  magis- 
trates) suggest  that  we  meet  in  the  old,  imperial  city 
of  Regensburg  in  Bavaria. ^®^ 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  POSITION   OF  CECOLAMPAD   AND 
BUCER   ON   INFANT   BAPTISM 

It  has  been  shown  elsewhere  that  John  CEcolam- 
pad,  before  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists,  did  not  de- 
fend infant  baptism.  When  he  reaHzed  that  an  ex- 
clusive state-church  necessitated  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, he  became  a  zealous  advocate  of  this  practice. 
Nevertheless  he  was  clearly  at  a  loss  to  find  a  Scrip- 
ture basis  for  his  new  position.  He  openly  confessed 
to  Zwingli  that  he  had  never  ventured  to  assert  that 
infant  baptism  could  be  supported  by  a  divine  com- 
mandment, but  for  the  sake  of  Christian  love  and  for 
the  reason  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  prosperity 
of  the  church,  the  pious  should  not  discard  it.^*^  In 
his  opinion  the  welfare  of  the  church  demanded  that 
infants  should  be  baptized.  That  he  had  difficulty  in 
persuading  his  own  friends  of  the  rightfulness  of  in- 
fant baptism  is  evidenced  by  his  letter  to  William 
Farel,  of  February  6,  1525,  in  which  he  complains 
that  many  of  his  own  circle  were  against  him  on  this 
question.^^^ 

In  his  principal  book  against  the  Anabaptists 
(1527)    he   says:    "I   have   never   made   a   command- 


92  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ment  in  point  of  the  time  when  such  rites  should  be 
observed  ....  and  I  should  be  willing  to  post- 
pone baptism  until  the  third  year,  if  such  a  course 
were  not  connected  with  so  many  dangers  at  this 
time."^^*  To  the  reformers  of  Bern  he  wrote:  "We 
make  no  law  concerning  day  and  year  [of  baptism], 
but  we  demand  that  our  opponents  take  a  similar 
attitude."^^^  In  this  way  CEcolampad  desired  to  com- 
promise the  question  with  the  Anabaptists  and  was 
wilHng  to  postpone  baptism  if  they  would  desist 
from  making  believers'  baptism  a  point  at  issue. 

Another  reason  for  (Ecolampad's  willingness  to 
postpone  (infant)  baptism  for  a  time  is  not  far  to 
seek.  For  years  after  he  had  become  the  leading 
reformer  of  Basel  and  after  he  had  discontinued  the 
practice  of  exorcism  in  St.  Martins  church,  many 
priests  of  the  city  continued  exorcism  and  other 
curious  ceremonies  in  connection  with  baptism.  These 
usages  were  retained  until  the  Zwinglian  Church  was 
made  the  state  church,  in  1529.  Those  who  were 
Zwinglian  at  heart,  but  happened  to  live  in  parishes 
whose  priests  persisted  in  the  old  forms,  must  have 
been  loath  to  bring  their  children  to  them  for  bap- 
tism, hence  it  was  natural  for  CEcolampad  to  desire 
that  baptism  might  in  certain  instances  be  postponed 
a  few  years.  But  whether  such  a  delay  in  the  matter 
of  baptism  was  ever  officially  permitted  at  Basel  is 
not  certain.  In  1527  CEcolampad  says  in  the  above 
mentioned  book  against  the  Anabaptists:  ''However, 
it  is  true,  the  Papists'  baptism  may  well  be  called  an 


EXORCISM  93 

abomination  for  the  sake  of  the  abuses  [exorcism, 
etc.]  which  go  with  it;  I  agree  with  you  [the  Ana- 
baptists] on  this  point.  —  A  Christian  should  not 
liave  his  children  baptized  where  such  errors  are  con- 
sidered right  in  baptism;  but  of  such  abominations 
yovL  find  none  in  our  way  to  baptize. "^^° 

At  the  time  of  his  first  discussions  with  the 
Anabaptists,  in  1525,  however,  CEcolampad  although 
"he  had  for  years  labored  as  a  Zwinglian  reformer, 
still  observed  these  ''abominations."  In  his  first  book 
against  the  Anabaptists,  written  in  this  year,  he  says : 
"I  was  also  reproached  by  them  because  we  observe 
strange  ceremonies  in  infant  baptism,  namely  exor- 
cism of  demons,  giving  of  salt,  the  use  of  tapers, 
saliva,  breathing  upon,  etc.  These  things  I  would 
not  defend  and  did  by  no  means  commend  them."^®^ 
But  since  the  Council  at  that  time  (August,  1525) 
did  not  permit  the  abolition  of  these  customs,  he  con- 
sented to  observe  them. 

CEcolampad  held  that  baptism  should  be  prac- 
ticed not  for  the  sake  of  the  one  who  is  baptized  but 
for  the  neighbor's  sake.^^^  Plainly  it  is  not  an  easy 
task  to  defend  infant  baptism  from  this  point  of 
view.  An  infant  can  not  have  any  obligation  toward 
his  neighbor.  He  advanced  the  argument  that  "in- 
fant baptism  was  never  forbidden  from  the  time  of 
the  apostles,"  but  was  a  general  practice. ^^^  It  is  a 
remarkable  fact  that  the  first  important  confession 
of  the  state-church  of  Basel  does  not  contain  an  ar- 
ticle on  baptism.^®* 


94  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Martin  Bucer,  the  leading  Zwinglian  minister  of 
Strasburg  (besides  Luther  and  Melanchthon  the 
greatest  of  the  German  reformers)  defended  infant 
baptism  for  reasons  of  expediency,  though  faith- 
baptism  alone  answered  fully  to  his  definitions  of 
baptism.  Hassencamp  says  correctly  that  "he  enter- 
tained various  doubts  regarding  infant  baptism ;  he 
preferred  to  dwell  primarily  on  the  baptism  of  those 
who  have  come  to  an  age  of  understanding  and  spoke 
of  infant  baptism  only  supplementarily,  pointing  to 
catechising  and  to  Confirmation. "^^^  And  Gustav 
Anrich,  the  most  recent  biographer  of  Bucer  says  r 
''Though  the  reformers  of  Strasburg  retained  infant 
baptism  and  Bucer  defended  it  as  not  contrary  to 
Scripture,  nevertheless  there  remained  among  them 
a  certain  reluctance  in  the  defence  of  this  practice. "^^* 

It  was  Bucer  who  first  introduced  the  rite  of 
Confirmation  in  the  new  state-church ;  he  is  father 
of  this  rite  among  the  German  Protestants.  Recent 
investigation  has  elucidated  the  fact  that  Confirma- 
tion was  introduced  as  a  concession  to  those  who 
were  favorably  inclined  toward  Anabaptism.^^^  At 
Strasburg  and  in  Hesse  large  sections  of  the  popula- 
tion were  influenced  by  the  Anabaptists.  That  every 
one  was  made  a  member  of  the  ruling  church  without 
his  knowledge  and  consent  was  severely  criticized 
and  Anabaptism  spread  at  an  alarming  rate.  Hence 
Bucer,  upon  the  suggestion  of  Schwenckfeld,  decided' 
that  Confirmation  should  be  practiced.  In  connection 
with  this  rite  the  young  people  should  confess  their 


BAPTISM  AND   CHURCH  MEMBERSHIP       95 

faith  and  make  the  vow  which  others  were  supposed 
to  have  made  for  them  when  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered to  them  in  their  infancy.  Later  Confirmation 
was  generally  practiced  among  the  Lutherans  and 
Zwinglians.  In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies a  number  of  religious  denominations  arose 
which  retained  infant  baptism  but  advanced  the  new 
idea  that  baptism  is  not  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the 
Christian  church  and  does  not  convey  the  right  of 
membership,  a  thought  that  is  foreign  to  Scripture 
teaching. 

Bucer's  most  prominent  co-worker  in  Strasburg, 
Wolfgang  Capito,  for  years  openly  favored  the 
abolishment  of  infant  baptism ;  it  was  feared  by  his 
colleagues  that  he  would  unite  with  the  Anabap- 
tists/®® 


CHAPTER  XII 

A  SINGULAR  ARGUMENT  FOR  INFANT 
BAPTISM 

The  principal  argument  of  the  Zwinglian  re- 
formers against  the  Anabaptists'  insistence  on  be- 
lievers' baptism  is  that  it  is  contrary  to  Christian  love.. 
John  CEcolampad,  after  he  had  read  Hubmaier's  book 
on  The  Christian  Baptism  of  Believers  (which,  as  the 
Zwinglian  J.  M.  Usteri  testifies/®^  establishes  the 
fact  that  a  direct  Scripture  proof  for  infant-baptism 
can  not  be  brought  forth),  sent  this  book  to  Zwingli 
on  October  2,  1525,  and  at  the  same  time  wrote  him: 
a  letter  in  which  he  says :  "It  seems  to  me  the  Ana- 
baptists have  no  regard  for  Christian  love,  which 
shows  us  what  is  to  be  observed  of  external 
things. "^°°  In  August,  1527,  he  further  wrote  to 
Zwingli  that  he  had  never  dared  and  did  not  now 
venture  to  base  infant  baptism  on  a  direct  divine 
command,  but  for  the  sake  of  Christian  love  it  was 
necessary  to  maintain  it.^^^  In  his  discussions  with 
the  Anabaptists  he  repeatedly  accuses  them  that  they 
sin,  above  all,  against  Christian  love  by  the  refusal 
to  identify  themselves  with  the  state-church.  "We- 
have  taught,"  he   says,  "that  it    [the  abolition  of  in- 


AN  INCONSISTENT  ATTITUDE  97 

fant  baptism]  is  out  of  place,  because  it  is  contrary 
to  Christian  love."  "Your  doctrine  is  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  true  love/'^°^  One  of  his  books  against  the 
Anabaptists  has  a  chapter  bearing  the  title:  That  the 
Abandoning  of  Infant  Baptism  is  Contrary  to  Chris- 
tian Love}^^  Martin  Bucer  used  the  same  argument 
against  the  Anabaptists.^^* 

At  the  time  when  (Ecolampad  wrote  these  sen- 
tences the  state-church  in  Basel  in  which  he  held  a 
prominent  place  was  still  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
CEcolampad  was  at  that  time  a  Zwinglian  by  confes- 
sion. For  years  the  Council  of  the  city  permitted 
him  and  others  to  preach  Zwinglian  doctrine  but  not 
to  introduce  Zwinglian  worship.  Although  in  his 
Exposition  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John^  published  in 
1524,  and  in  other  places,  he  had  said  that  the  mass  is 
blasphemy  and  an  abomination,^®"  he  nevertheless 
held  the  office  of  a  priest.  He  and  all  the  other 
priests  of  the  city  who  adhered  to  Zwinglian  doctrine 
were  obliged  to  say  mass  personally  if  they  did  not 
find  it  possible  to  have  a  substitute  act  in  their  place. 
They  did  not  desire  to  lay  down  their  office  in  the 
state-church  and  hence  saw  themselves  com.pelled  to 
engage  in  that  which  they  denounced  as  blasphemous. 

After  CEcolampad  had  labored  a  few  years  in 
Basel  as  a  reformer  he  accepted  on  February  24, 
1525  the  office  of  the  parish  priest  at  the  church  of 
St.  Martin.  He  declared  his  willingness  to  say  mass 
and  to  make  no  changes  and  introduce  no  innovations 
without   the    consent   of    the    authorities.^"*      A    few 


98  INFANT  BAPTISM 

weeks  before  Easter  of  the  following  year  the  Coun- 
cil exempted  him  from  the  obligation  to  say  mass.^^^ 
Not  only  the  Anabaptists  but  some  of  his  own  friends 
considered  it  a  grave  offence  that  he  consented  to 
that  which,  according  to  his  own  teaching,  was  blas- 
phemy.^°^  In  1530,  after  the  Zwinglian  Church  had 
been  made  the  state-church,  he  asserted,  if  it  was 
permissible  to  go  to  mass,  it  was  also  unobjectionable 
to  sacrifice  at  the  altars  of  the  heathen  deities  Jupiter 
and  Venus. ^^^ 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  at  least  one  of 
the  ministers  of  Basel  found  it  apparently  impossible 
to  persuade  himself  that  he  was  under  duty,  from 
motives  of  love  to  the  church,  to  observe  the  un- 
scriptural  mass.  Jacob  Imler,  the  pastor  of  St. 
Ulrich  Church,  repeatedly  disregarded  CEcolampad's 
advice  on  the  point  in  question.  A  letter  of  CEcolam- 
pad  to  William  Farel,  dated  February  6,  1525,  gives 
information  concerning  Imler's  difficulty,  as   follows. 

''Imler  is  having  a  hard  time.  On  the  last  Sab- 
bath again  he  nearly  lost  his  position.  The  Council 
had  ordered  him  to  say  mass  or  lay  down  his  office. 
I,  being  unwilling  that  the  man  should  resign  his 
office,  advised  him  to  make  a  public  deception^^** 
from  motives  of  consideration  for  the  church.  —  And 
lest  he  should  be  tormented  in  his  conscience  [doing 
that  which  he  considers  a  sinful  act],  I  promised  to 
be  present  as  a  companion  [when  Imler  was  to  offi- 
ciate again  in  the  mass].  The  affair  succeeded,  as  I 
have  written.  Again,  a  second  time  he  will  be  called 
before  the  Council."^" 

QEcolampad    consented    to    the    maintenance    of 


ZWINGLI   UPHOLDS  STATE-CHURCHISM  99 

Roman  Catholic  worship  until  the  Council  of  the 
city  would  give  permission  to  abandon  it.  On  the 
one  hand  he  held,  as  pointed  out  above,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  believers'  baptism  was  contrary  to  the  best 
interest  of  the  church,  and  on  the  other  hand  he  took 
the  position  that  Roman  CathoHc  worship  must  be 
continued  until  the  state  would  consent  to  make  the 
Zwinglian   Church  the   state-church. 

Zwingli  himself,  at  Zurich,  took  the  same  atti- 
tude on  the  question  of  abolishing  Romish  worship 
and  advised  others  to  continue  the  observance  of  the 
mass  until  the  state  would  abolish  it.  When  the 
reformers  of  Bern,  Berthold  Haller  and  Francis 
Kolb,  asked  his  advice  concerning  the  introduction 
of  evangelical  worship,  he  replied  to  them  in  a  letter 
dated  October  11,  1527,  to  the  effect  that  the  evan- 
gelical Supper  should  not  be  held  in  Bern  before  the 
abolishment  of  the  mass  by  the  state;  otherwise  it 
was  to  be  feared  that  the  Council  of  Bern  would 
permit  the  celebration  of  the  mass  after  the  Zwing- 
lian Church  had  been  made  the  state  church ;  this, 
says  Zwingli,  they  should  prevent.^^^  He  did  not  de- 
sire that  the  Council  of  Bern  should  tolerate  within 
their  territory  any  other  creed  after  the  Zwinglian 
Church  was  made  the  state-church  and  it  was  in- 
consistent with  the  principles  of  state-churchism  to 
tolerate  dissenting  religious  forms  while  the  Roman 
Cathohc   Church   was   the   state-church. ^^^ 

CEcolampad  held  that  the  Anabaptists  sinned 
against  Christian  love  since  they  refused  to  go  hand 


100  INFANT  BAPTISM 

in  hand  with  him  and  to  accept  that  which  from 
his  own  point  of  view  was  glaring  compromise.  The 
Zwinglian  reformers  who  urged  the  necessity  to  sup- 
press Anabaptism  by  the  strong  arm  of  the  civil 
power  do  not  seem  to  have  realized  that  the  terrible 
persecution  of  the  Anabaptists  was  a  flagrant  travesty 
of  Qiristiaa  love. 

Also  the  assertion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  party 
that  CEcolampad's  own  course  was  contrary  to  Chris- 
tian love  was  not  for  a  moment  countenanced  by 
him.  As  early  as  the  year  1522,  namely  before  he 
came  to  Basel,  he  found  a  refuge  on  the  Ebernburg 
under  the  protection  of  the  knight  Francis  von 
Sikkingen  with  whose  consent  he  held  the  mass  in 
the  German  language.  Upon  the  protest  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  against  the  abandonment  of  the  cus- 
tomary forms  he  said :  ^^A^ltogether  unfounded  is  the 
opinion  that  love  will  suffer  loss  by  this  innovation ; 
on  the  contrary,  love  shall  be  the  better  established 
through  it."^^*  And  at  a  later  date,  namely  on  May 
12,  1528,  when  an  assertion  was  made  that  the  aboli- 
tion of  Romanism  at  Constance  was  contrary  to 
Christian  love,  CEcolampad  wrote  to  Johann  Zwick, 
the  reformer  of  that  place,  that  this  objection  was 
not  worthy  of  consideration.  Christian  love  demand- 
ed, in  his  opinion,  that  scriptural  forms  of  worship 
should  not  be  introduced  so  long  as  the  magistrates 
of  any  given  place  did  not  consent  to  it,  (and  hence 
the  Anabaptists'  attitude  was  wrong)  but  when 
Zwinglianism  was  made  the  creed  of  the  state,  then 


ZWINGLFS  LATER  OPINION  101 

love  required  that  all  dissenting  worship  must  cease. 
Romanism  as  well  as  Anabaptism  was  severely  per- 
secuted in  Basel  after  the  Zwinglian  Church  had 
been  made  the  state-church. 

The  assertion  that  Anabaptism  is  contrary  to 
Christian  love  is  but  another  version  of  the  opinion 
stated  repeatedly  by  Zwingli  that  infant  baptism  is 
necessary  for  the  prosperity  of  the  church  and 
should  be  practiced  from  motives  of  love  to  the 
church. ^^^  (Compare  p.  50).  In  later  years  Zwingli 
recognized  the  weakness  and  futility  of  this  argu- 
ment. He  reproved  those  who  asserted  that  accord- 
ing to  his  own  teaching  infant  baptism  would  be 
acceptable  if  love  did  not  forbid  it.    He  says  further: 

"They  teach  inconsistently  who  say  that  for  the 
sake  of  love  we  could  have  patience  with  the  baptism 
of  infants,  unless  they  mean  that  among  Christians 
all  things  should  be  done  by  love  and  not  by  com- 
mand or  by  force  of  law.  But  if  by  love  they  mean 
compliance  and  obsequiousness,  I  think  they  err 
seriously  who  say  that  for  the  sake  of  love  infants 
should  be  baptized.  For  clearly  they  mean  that  a 
usage  which  at  this  time  must  be  accepted  for  the 
sake  of  public  peace,  may  be  omitted  at  another  time 
and  under  other  circumstances."^^® 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Luther,  in  his  con- 
troversy with  Carlstadt,  advanced  the  same  argument 
as  did  the  Zwinglians  against  the  Anabaptists ;  he  as- 
serted that  the  (in  his  opinion  untimely)  introduction 
of  practical  reforms  by  Carlstadt  in  Wittenberg,  in 
1521,  was  contrary  to  Christian  love,   for  it  was  an 


102  INFANT  BAPTISM 

offence  to  the  weak.  This  was  his  principal  argu- 
ment for  again  abandoning  the  evangehcal  forms  of 
worship  which  Carlstadt  had  introduced  in  his  ab- 
sence."^^  Conrad  Grebel  pointed  out  that  Luther,  in 
taking  this  step,  showed  that  he  himself  was  one  of 
"the  weak."^^^  After  the  Lutheran  Church  was  made 
the  state  church,  the  principle  of  "the  sparing  of  the 
weak"  was  lost  out  of  sight.  Carlstadt's  masterly 
refutation  of  Luther's  opinion  on  the  point  in  ques- 
tion has  not  yet  received  the  attention  which  it  de- 
serves.^^^ 

In  the  great  debate  of  Zofingen,  in  1532,  the 
Zwinglian  theologians  suggested  that  love  should  be 
recognized  as  "the  final  judge  in  all  controverted 
points."  The  Anabaptist  spokesmen,  on  the  other 
hand,  pointed  out  that  love  to  God  will  manifest 
itself  by  loyalty  to  his  Word  and  keeping  his  com- 
mandments.^^^ 

Hubmaier  gave  his  book  on  Believers'  Baptism 
the  motto:  "Love  rejoiceth  in  the  truth."  His  reply 
to  (Ecolampad's  assertion  that  "your  doctrine  is  in 
direct  opposition  to  true  love,"  will  be  quoted  else- 
where.    (P.  105). 

On  the  relation  of  Christian  love  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  commands  of  the  Scriptures,  we  have  an 
important  statement  by  Michael  Sattler,  the  most 
prominent  leader  of  the  Southern  Anabaptists  after 
the  death  of  Grebel  and  Mantz.  When  Sattler,  in 
1527,  came  to  Strasburg,  Martin  Bucer  endeavored 
to  convince   him  that   the   Anabaptists   erred   not   so 


SATTLER'S  LETTER  TO  BUCER         103 

much  in  faith  as  in  love.     Sattler  wrote  to  Bucer  and 
his  coworkers  a  letter  in  which  he  says : 

''Dear  brethren,  when  recently  I  in  brotherly 
manner  and  friendliness  conferred  with  you  concern- 
ing certain  articles  which  I  and  my  dear  brethren 
and  sisters  have  accepted  from  Scripture,  you  have 
answered  in  the  same  manner  and  friendliness  con- 
cerning those  articles,  that  love  is  the  end  of  the  law 
(I  Tim.  1:5).  —  But  my  understanding  and  con- 
science do  not  permit  me  to  accept  as  right  your 
usage  as  concerns  baptism,  the  Supper,  etc.  —  These 
things  hinder  me  and  I  ami  not  able  to  understand 
your  assertion  that  the  neglect  of  these  things  is 
justified  by  the  said  verse  of  Paul."^^^ 

Obviously  the  argument  that  the  abolishment  of 
infant  baptism  is  contrary  to  Christian  love  was  based 
principally  on  the  fact  that  it  led  to  separation  from 
the  state-church.  Frequently  the  reformers  condemned 
the  dissent  and  separation  of  the  Anabaptists.  But 
if  the  separation  in  itself  was  wrong,  what  right  had 
the  state-church  reformers  to  enter  upon  a  course 
which  led  to  separation  from  the  Roman  CathoHc 
Church  ? 


CHAPTER  XIII 

A    DIALOGUE    ON    INFANT    BAPTISM 

BETWEEN    HUBMAIER    AND 

CECOLAMPAD 

In  September,  1525,  John  CEcolampad  published 
A  Discussion  Between  Preachers  at  Basel  and  Repre- 
sentatives of  Anahaptism.  To  this  little  book  Hub- 
maier  replied  by  his  Discussion  Concerning  Infant 
Baptism  Between  the  Preachers  at  Basel  and  Balt- 
hasar  Hubmaier.  He  quotes  literally  from  QEcolam- 
pad's  book,  adding  his  reply.  A  part  of  Hubmaier's 
book  follows. ^^^ 

CEcolampad.  —  Since  the  Anabaptists  openly 
boast  that  they  have  overcome  and  silenced  us  in  the 
recent  debate,  therefore  I  shall  herewith  publish  what 
arguments  have  been  advanced  on  both  sides,  in  order 
that  their  praise  may  spread  even  farther  and  that 
every  one  may  see  of  what  spirit  the  clever  fellows 
are  and  where  the  shoe  pinches  them.    (A2^).^^^ 

Hubmaier.  —  This  is  quite  right,  friend  CEcol- 
ampad, that  you  have  decided  to  bring  the  Anabap- 
tists to  the  light.  But  I  ask  you  to  do  it  with  clear 
and  plain  Scripture,  or  you  shall  indeed  be  put  to 
shame  in  this  matter,  be  you  ever  so  learned,  for  the 
truth  is  immortal. 

CEcolampad.  —  What  I  have  said,  preached  and 


HUBMAIER    VS.    CECOLAMPAD         105 

written,  I  shall  continue  to  defend  and  commit  to 
others;  for  your  doctrine  is  quite  new,^^*  dating  back 
not  more  than  two  years ;  therefore  it  must  be  looked 
upon  with  suspicion.  (A2^). 

Hubmaier.  —  I  ask  you,  for  God's  sake,  friend 
(Ecolampad,  do  not  build  upon  such  inapplicable  ar- 
guments, but  upon  clear  Scripture.  You  know  that 
Christ's  doctrine  has  often  been  attacked  with  the 
assertion  that  it  is  a  new  doctrine.  (Mark  1:27; 
Acts  17:19,20).  The  pending  question  is  not  of  our 
own  invention,  but  Christ  has  thus  commanded  and 
the  Apostles  have  practiced  it;  therefore  we  offer  to 
you  and  all  men  to  bring  our  differences  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  If  we  in  this 
or  other  points  are  in  the  right,  why  do  you  smite  us? 
If  we  are  wrong,  we  ask  to  be  pointed  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Scripture. 

CEcolampad.  —  If  you  prove  this  doctrine,  you 
will  find  that  it  is  squarely  contrary  to  true  love. 
(A2b).  ^      ■ 

Hubmaier.  —  If  through  an  inquiry  into  the 
Scriptures  it  is  found  that  baptism  was  instituted  for 
the  instructed  and  the  believers,  and  not  for  infants 
in  the  cradle,  then  it  is  the  truth.  Now  Paul  writes, 
I  Cor.  13:6,  that  love  rejoiceth  in  the  truth.  What, 
is  truth  now  contrary  to  love?  But  perhaps  you 
speak  of  the  love  of  the  world  which  can  not  endure 
divine  truth,  for  its  works  are  evil,  therefore  it  hates 
the  light.     John  3:20. 

(Ecolampad.  —  It  is  a  scorn  to  a  Christian 
church,  that  we  should  have  erred  so  long.   (A2^).^^'^ 

Hubmaier.  —  This  is  a  poor  argument.  It  is 
advanced  also  by  the  ungodly.  You  must  be  in  dire 
straits  that  you  have  drawn  this  useless  sword  with 


106  INFANT  BAPTISM 

which,  if  it  were  not  too  dull,  the  Papists  would  have 
pierced  you  long  ago. 

(Ecolmnpad.  —  This  doctrine  causes  separation 
and  division  which  can  not  be  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

(Aa"). 

Huhmaier.  —  Does  this  surprise  you?  Was  not 
Christ  himself  "a  sign  that  was  spoken  against?" 
(Luke  2:34).  He  ''came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a 
sword."  (Matt.  10:34).  "There  shall  be  five  in  one 
house  divided ;  the  father  against  the  son  and  the 
son  against  the  father,"  etc.  (Luke  12:52,53).  O, 
this  is  a  blessed  division,  says  Chrysostom.  And 
Paul  says:  ''If  I  yet  pleased  men,  I  should  not  be 
the  servant  of  Christ"   (Gal.  1:10). 

(Ecolampad.  —  Tell  me  who  has  taught  this 
until  now  or  when  was  this  usage  followed?     (A2^). 

Huhmaier.  —  Christ  has  taught  it  to  us  when  he 
instituted  baptism  (Matt.  28:19;  Mark  16:16),  and 
the  Apostles  have  practiced  and  kept  it.  Read  the 
Scriptures  carefully  and  you  shall  find  that  since  the 
beginning  of  the  Reformation  movement  no  article 
has  been  more  clearly  established  than  this,  that 
Christ  instituted  his  baptism  for  the  believers  and 
not  for  the  unknowing  infants. 

(Ecolampad.  —  It  was  the  usage  of  the  mother 
of  the  church  to  baptize  infants.   (A2^). 

Huhmaier.  —  Yes,  of  the  Papistic,  but  not  of 
the  Christian  mother  of  the  church,  nor  of  the  Father 
who  is  in  heaven.  Otherwise  he  would  have  institut- 
ed it  through  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  has 
bidden  us  to  hear.  (Matt.  17:5).  He,  and  not  the 
usage,  is  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life.  (John  14:6). 

(Ecolampad.  —  The  Pelagians,  as  well  as  Cy- 
prian and  the  Council  of  Carthage,  were  thoroughly 


HUBMAIER    VS.    CECOLAMPAD         107 

learned  in  Scripture,  and  yet  they  did  not  reject  in- 
fant baptism.   (A3^). 

Hubmaier.  —  Cyprian,  the  Councils,  and  others 
I  follow  just  so  far  as  they  teach  the  Scriptures,  and 
not  farther.     This,  in  fact,  is  all  they  ask  of  me. 

CEcolampad.  —  So  many  hundreds  of  thousands 
who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  you  would  not  hold  as 
Christian  brothers ;  how  strait  would  you  make 
Christ's  kingdom!   (A3b). 

Hubmaier.  —  So  many  hundreds  of  thousands 
who  venerate  and  worship  the  bread  and  cup  in  the 
mass  as  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  you  would  not 
hold  as  Christian  brothers ;  how  narrow  would  you 
make  Christ's  kingdom ! 

CEcolampad.  —  If  you  introduce  a  new  sect,  you 
incorporate  yourself  with  the  devil.  (A3^). 

Hubmaier.  —  Do  not  blaspheme.  Give  testi- 
mony with  the  Scriptures  that  to  baptize  according 
to  the  express  order  of  Christ  is  to  incorporate  one's 
self  with  the  devil.  If  you  were  looking  upon  the 
one  Master  in  heaven  and  upon  the  truth  itself  with 
a  meek,  teachable  heart,  you  would  not  use  such  re- 
proachful language.  But  you  have  spoken  in  wrath 
and  your  word  is  evil.     May  God  forgive  you. 

CEcolampad.  —  It  is  one  thing  to  baptize  adults 
and  another  to  baptize  infants  of  believers   (Bl*). 

Hubmaier.  —  Quite  true.  The  one  is  founded 
on  Scripture,  the  second  is  not;  hence  they  are  two. 
different  things. 

CEcolampad.  —  I  shall  show  it  from  the  book  of 
Exodus.  (Bla). 

Hubmaier.  —  Baptism  is  a  ceremony  of  the  New 
Testament;  therefore  I  demand  a  plain  text  with 
which  you  support  infant  baptism  from  the  New 
Testament.     That  text  [on  infant  baptism]   seems  to 


108  INFANT  BAPTISM 

be  of  the  night  owl  species ;  it  will  not  come  to  the 
light. 

CEcolampad.  —  Those  who  are  baptized  inward- 
ly can  not  be  lost.   (Bl^). 

Hubmaier.  —  Those  who  are  baptized  inwardly 
will  not  despise  the  command  of  Christ,  but  will  be 
baptized  outwardly,  if  a  baptizer  and  water  is  within 
their  reach.  With  this  argument,  it  would  seem,  you 
really  overthrow  and  destroy  the  baptism  of  Christ. 

CEcolampad.  —  Why  this  division  for  the  sake  of 
the  water?  (62^). 

Hubmaier.  —  This  is  not  a  question  of  mere 
water,  but  of  the  high  command  and  baptism  of 
Christ.     Water  is  not  baptism. 

CEcolampad.  —  Baptism  is  a  testimony  rather 
than  a  sign  of  union  between  the  Christians.  We 
testify  in  baptism  that  we  are  joined  to  Christ.  (B3*) 

Hubmaier.  —  I  am  well  satisfied  with  this  defini- 
tion. But  tell  me,  by  all  means,  one  thing.  May 
infants  in  the  cradle  give  such  a  testimony  and  join 
themselves  to  Christ?  If  you  say  no,  why  do  you 
baptize  them?  If  you  say,  others  do  it  in  their  stead, 
you  make  an  addition  unfounded  in  Scripture. 

CEcolampad.  —  I  will  refer  you  to  a  place  in 
TertuUian  showing  that  baptism  is  not  a  sign  of 
union.   (B3^). 

Hubmaier.  —  You  tell  me  much  of  TertuUian, 
Origen,  Cyprian,  Augustine,  Councils,  histories  and 
old  customs.  I  am  compelled  to  think  you  are  in 
want  of  Scriptures.  They  will  not  come  out  of  the 
quiver.  Dear  CEcolampad,  put  together  your  Scrip- 
ture passages  pertaining  to  infant  baptism,  as  I  have 
done  with  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  baptism  of 
believers    in    my    little    book    on    baptism    printed    in 


HUBMAIER    VS.   (ECOLAMPAD         109 

Strasburg,  and  we  will  compare  them  and  soon  shall 
be  agreed.     Do  it.     Don't  forget  it. 

In  short,  I  let  you  all  be  highly  learned,  as  you 
boast,  but  I  have  spoken  in  simplicity  and  my  speech 
is  and  shall  be  and  must  be  thus;  for  the  carpenter's 
Son  who  never  went  to  any  school,  has  bidden  me  so 
to  speak  and  he  himself  has  hewed  my  pen  with  his 
carpenter's  axe.  May  God  have  mercy  on  us  all. 
Amen. 


CHAPTER   XIV 
MENNO    SIMONS    ON    BAPTISM 

Menno  Simons  was  one  of  the  great  Anabap- 
tist leaders,  the  most  prominent  spokesman  of  the 
Northern  Anabaptists  in  the  defence  of  faith- 
baptism.     He  says : 

All  the  rites  ordained  of  God,  both  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  have  been  instituted  that  our 
faith  may  be  exercised  and  our  obedience  proven. 
Therefore  we  must  not  use  them  at  our  own  pleasure, 
nor  change  them  to  suit  our  fancies,  but  we  must  use 
them  as  the  Lord  himself  has  ordained  and  com- 
manded in  his  Word  (19^;  I:34b).22« 

For  the  truly  regenerated  and  spiritually  minded 
conform  in  all  things  to  the  word  and  ordinances  of 
the  Lord;  not  for  the  reason  that  they  suppose  to 
merit  the  propitiation  of  their  sins  and  eternal  life; 
by  no  means.  For  this  they  depend  on  nothing  ex- 
cept the  blood  and  merits  of  Christ,  relying  upon  the 
sure  promise  of  the  merciful  Father  which  was 
graciously  given  to  all  believers ;  which  blood  alone, 
I  say  again,  is  and  ever  will  be  the  only  and  eternally 
valid  means  of  our  reconciliation,  and  not  works, 
baptism,  or  Lord's  Supper,  as  said  above.  (115^; 
1:158^). 

We  are  not  regenerated  because  we  have  been 
baptized,     .     .     .     but   we   are   baptized   because   we 


BAPTISM  FOLLOWS  REGENERATION     111 

have  been  regenerated  by  faith  and  the  Word  of  God 
(I  Pet.  1:23).  Regeneration  is  not  the  result  of 
baptism,  but  baptism  the  result  of  regeneration.  This 
can  indeed  not  be  controverted,  or  disproven  by  the 
Scriptures   (418^;  II  :215a). 

The  Scriptures  know  of  only  one  remedy,  which 
is  Christ  with  his  merits,  death  and  blood.  Hence, 
he  w^ho  seeks  the  remission  of  his  sins  through  bap- 
tism, rejects  the  blood  of  the  Lord  and  makes  water 
his  idol.  Therefore  let  every  one  have  a  care,  lest  he 
ascribe  the  honor  and  glory  due  to  Christ,  to  the  out- 
ward  ceremonies   and  visible   elements    (17^;   1 :32a). 

Now  since  all  truly  believing  and  baptized  Chris- 
tians have  put  on  Christ  (Gal.  3:27)  and  to  put  on 
Christ  is  to  partake  of  Christ,  his  life,  mind,  nature, 
spirit  and  all  that  is  his,  and  since  it  is  clear  that  the 
means  to  obtain  this  is  faith,  and  faith  must  prove 
itself  by  its  power  and  fruits  if  baptism  is  to  be 
properly  received,  it  follows  undeniably  that  baptism 
is  for  penitents  and  believers  only.^^"^ 

Dear  reader,  this  is  to  be  held  as  a  sure,  eternal 
and  unchangeable  rule  of  divine  truth  to  fulfill  all 
righteousness,  namely,  first  the  true  preaching  of  the 
holy  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ;  secondly,  to  hear  wath 
earnestness  and  to  understand;  thirdly,  to  cordially^ 
believe  the  Gospel  and  to  carry  out  its  teaching.  This 
being  the  case,  it  follows  that  the  unconscious  infants 
have  no  faith,  for  they  can  not  understand  and  learn, 
—  If  they  die  before  they  come  to  years  of  under- 
standing and  before  they  may  hear  and  believe,  they 
die  under  the  promise  of  God  and  are  saved,  and  this 
by  no  other  means  than  the  precious  promise  of  grace 
given  by  Jesus  Christ,  Luke  18:16.    (404^;  II  :198b). 

Faith  is  to  precede  baptism.  For  the  beginning 
of  all  righteousness  which  avails  before  God  is  faith. 


112  INFANT  BAPTISM 

from  which  baptism  results  as  a  sign  and  proof  of 
obedience.  If  tlie  infants,  then,  had  faith,  their  bap- 
tism would  not  be  forbidden  by  the  alleged  words  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  (402^;  197^). 

All  who  bring  you  another  doctrine  respecting 
the  signs  or  ordinances,  and  place  them  before  or 
above  faith  and  repentance,  deceive  you,  however 
much  they  may  adorn  their  teaching  with  choice 
words,  such  as  sealing,  sign  of  grace,  etc.,  for  it  is  in 
fact  nothing  but  human  wisdom,  deception  of  souls 
and  dissimulation.  For,  if  the  children  under  the  Old 
Dispensation  were  received  into  the  covenant  by  cir- 
cumcision and  those  of  the  New  Dispensation  by  bap- 
tism, as  he  [Gellius]  says,  it  would  undeniably  follow 
that  the  infants  who  died  before  the  eighth  day  and 
those  who  were  not  circumcised  in  the  wilderness 
[Josh.  5:5],  as  well  as  all  the  females  had  no  share 
in  the  grace,  covenant  or  promise.  The  same  would 
also  apply  to  the  children  who  have  died  before  they 
'Could  have  been  baptized.  O  great  abomination! 
<270b;  II  :47b). 

It  is  in  my  opinion  a  great  error  which  some 
"entertain,  that  the  children  of  Jewish  parents  were 
acceptable  to  Christ  on  account  of  circumcision,  and 
that  in  this  dispensation  children  are  acceptable  on 
account  of  baptism.  O  great  reproach,  that  in  every 
instance  Christ,  the  only  and  eternal  medium  of  di- 
vine grace,  must  be  set  aside  and  grace  must  be  at- 
tributed to  rites  and  lifeless  elements.  Here  I  would 
ask  all  infant  baptists  how  they  are  going  to  prove 
that  these  children  [whom  Jesus  blessed]  were  all 
circumcised  and  that  there  were  not  among  them 
female  children?  If  they  were  acceptable  on  account 
of  their  circumcision,  as  is  asserted,  then  why  were 
not  the  adults  who  were  circumcised  acceptable?    He 


LUTHER    ON   FAITH   OF  INFANTS     113 

commanded  that  adults,  although  they  were  circum- 
cised, should  be  baptized  upon  their  faith,  but  con- 
cerning infants  he  gave  no  command  to  baptize.  He 
took  them  into  his  arms,  laid  his  hands  upon  them 
and  blessed  them,  promised  them  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  and  dismissed  them,  but  did  not  baptize  them. 
{18b;  1:33^). 

Luther  writes  that  infants  should  be  baptized 
because  of  their  own  faith,  and  adds,  if  infants  had 
no  faith  their  baptism  would  be  blaspheming  the 
sacrament.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  great  error  of  so 
learned  a  man  through  whom  the  Lord  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  writing  affected  not  a  little  good,  to  hold 
that  infants  who  are  unable  to  hear  and  to  under- 
stand, have  faith,  while  the  Scriptures  so  plainly  state 
that  they  know  neither  good  nor  evil,  that  they  can 
not  discern  right  from  wrong  (Deut.  1:39;  Jonah 
4:11);  and  he  says  that  faith  is  inactive  and  con- 
cealed in  infants  until  they  arrive  at  the  years  of 
understanding,  even  as  in  a  believing  person  who  is 
asleep.  If  Luther  writes  this  as  his  sincere  opinion, 
it  shows  that  he  has  written  much  in  vain  concerning 
faith  and  its  power;  but  if  he  writes  this  to  please 
men,  may  God  have  mercy  upon  him.  We  know  of 
a  truth  that  it  is  only  human  reasoning  and  a  fable 
of  men,  and  by  God's  grace  it  shall  not  make  void  the 
word  and  ordinance  of  the  Lord.  For  we  read  no- 
where in  Scripture  that  the  apostles  baptized  a  single 
believer  while  asleep.  They  baptized  those  who  were 
awake  and  not  the  sleeping  ones.  Why  then  do  they 
baptize  infants  before  they  awake  from  that  supposed 
sleeping  faith,  and  confess  it?     (15*;  1:29*). 

Beloved,  since  the  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
unchangeable,  and  it  alone  is  acceptable  to  the  Fath- 
er;   and   since  he   has   commanded   that   the   Gospel 


114  INFANT  BAPTISM 

should  first  be  preached  and,  secondly,  those  who  be- 
lieve baptized,  it  follows  that  those  who  baptize  and 
are  baptized  without  being  taught  the  holy  Gospel  and 
without  faith,  baptize  and  are  baptzied  on  their  own 
opinion,  without  the  doctrine  and  command  of  Jesus 
Christ;  therefore  it  is  an  ungodly,  useless  and  vain 
ceremony.  For  had  Israel  circumcised  their  females 
because  it  was  not  expressly  forbidden,  they  would 
have  circumcised  without  the  ordinance  of  God,  for 
he  had  commanded  that  the  males  should  be  circum- 
cised. It  is  the  same  in  this  instance.  To  baptize 
the  unconscious  infants,  although  it  is  not  expressly 
forbidden  in  Scripture,  just  as  it  was  not  forbidden 
to  circumcise  the  females,  is  to  baptize  without  the 
ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ;  for  he  commanded  that 
those  should  be  baptized  who  hear  and  believe  his 
holy  gospel.  Matt.  28:19;  Mark  16:16;  Acts  7:38; 
9:18;  10:48;  16:33.     (402^;  II  :196b). 

True,  it  is  not  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  bless,  as  they  call  it,  holy  water,  candles, 
palms,  goblets,  and  robes,  to  say  mass  and  observe 
other  ceremonies  of  similar  nature;  yet  we  say  right- 
fully that  these  things  are  wrong,  first  because  people 
put  their  trust  in  them,  and  secondly  because  they 
are  done  without  the  commandment  of  God,  for  he 
has  commanded  us  not  a  word  thereof ;  and  never 
should  any  commandment  be  observed  which  is  not 
contained  or  implied  in  his  holy  Word,  either  in. 
letter  or  spirit.  (418^  II  :214b). 

To  baptize  before  that  which  is  required  for 
baptism,  namely  faith,  is  found  is  as  if  one  would 
place  the  cart  before  the  horse,  to  sow  before  plow- 
ing, to  build  before  the  lumber  is  at  hand,  or  to  seal 
the  letter  before  it  is  written   (415^;  II  :211b). 

I  do  not  doubt  but  that  you  will  confess  that  the: 


OPINION  OF  O  RIG  EN  AND  AUGUSTINE     115 

faith,  which  avails  with  God  is  a  gift  of  God,  a  gift 
which  brings  forth  all  righteousness,  and  that  such 
faith  comes  from  hearing  the  divine  word.  If,  now, 
it  comes  by  hearing  the  Word,  as  Paul  teaches,  how 
will  it  be  found  in  unconscious  infants,  for  it  is  plain 
that  they  can  not  be  taught,  admonished  or  instructed 
(403^  II  :197b). 

Lastly,  they  appeal  to  Origen  and  Augustine  and 
say  that  these  assert  that  they  have  obtained  infant 
baptism  from  the  apostles.  To  this  we  reply  and 
inquire  whether  Origen  and  Augustine  have  proved 
.it  from  Scripture.  If  they  have  done  so,  we  desire 
to  hear  it.  But  if  not,  we  must  hear  and  believe 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  not  Augustine  and 
Origen   (21^;  1:37^). 

Since,  then,  we  do  not  find  in  all  Scripture  a 
single  word  by  which  Christ  has  ordained  the  baptism 
of  infants,  or  that  his  apostles  taught  and  practiced 
it,  we  say  and  confess  rightly  that  infant  baptism  is 
but  a  human  invention,  an  opinion  of  men,  a  perver- 
sion of  the  ordinance  of  Christ  (15^;  1 :29b). 


CHAPTER   XV 

JOHN  CALVIN  AND  JOHN  V/ESLEY  ON 
INFANT  BAPTISM 

John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  the  Presbyterian 
and  some  of  the  Reformed  churches,  based  his  prin- 
cipal argument  for  infant  baptism  on  God's  covenant 
of  grace  in  which  he  believed  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  to  be  in  a  sense  included.  Nevertheless 
he  did  not  hold  that  all  children  of  Christians  are  in 
a  real  sense  within  God's  covenant  of  grace.  He  be- 
lieved that  there  are  non-elect  ('"reprobate")  infants 
who  are  not  included  in  God's  grace  nor  are  worthy- 
members  of  the  Christian  church,  though  they  be 
born  of  Christian  parents.  The  fact  that  in  his  opin- 
ion not  all  such  infants  are  of  the  elect  is  ignored  in 
his  defence  of  infant  baptism. 

While  Calvin  baptized  the  children  of  church 
members,  he  taught  that  the  children  of  unbelievers. 
Papists  and  heathen  must  not  be  baptized  until  they 
believe  and  confess  their  faith.^^^  But  he  himself 
and  his  leading  coworkers  were  the  children  of  Papist 
parents  and  were  only  in  their  infancy  baptized 
into  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Like  Zwingli  he 
made    circumcision    one   of    his   principal   arguments. 


WILLIAM  FAREL  ON  BAPTISM        117 

His  teaching  on  the  meaning  and  import  of  baptism 
is  not  favorable,  in  fact,  to  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism. 2-^  His  position  on  the  relation  of  the 
church  to  the  state  and  rejection  of  the  Voluntary 
Principle  made  infant  baptism  necessary. 

William  Farel,  Calvin's  predecessor  in  Geneva 
and  one  of  the  principal  Calvinist  Reformers,  in  the 
first  period  of  his  labors  clearly  recognized  believers' 
baptism  to  be  more  scriptural  than  infant  baptism. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  in  that  period  he  rebaptized 
the  converts  from  Romanism  upon  the  confession  of 
their  faith.     He  says  in  1527: 

''Many  people  fail  to  see  what  it  means  to  enlist 
under  Christ,  what  it  means  to  be  willing  to  serve 
him,  to  place  everything  in  subordination  to  the  law 
of  God,  walking  and  continuing  in  newness  of  life 
.  .  .  and  hence  are  not^  willing  in  the  presence  of 
Christian  people  to  be  baptized  in  the  water,  and  to 
proclaim  openly  that  which  they  believe  in  their  heart, 
that  they  may  become  dearer  to  the  brethren  and 
more  closely  bound  to  Christ  by  this  solemn  profes- 
sion —  a  practice  which  ought  to  be  observed  by 
older  persons  who  flee  to  us  for  refuge  from  the 
impious  [Papists],  if  the  various  ordinances  are  to 
be  rightly  dispensed,  as  John  the  Baptist  began  and 
Christ  taught."'^" 

Among  the  prominent  reformers  in  Christian 
history  there  is  none  whose  attitude  toward  infant 
baptism  was  more  inconsistent  than  that  of  John  Wes- 
ley, the  founder  of  the  Methodist  Church. -^^  His  posi- 
tion regarding  this  question  is  explained  by  his  atti- 
tude toward  the  Church  of  England.     His  aim  was  to 


118  INFANT  BAPTISM 

organize,  within  the  EngHsh  state-church,  societies 
consisting  of  believers  only.  After  toleration  was 
denied  them  in  the  mother  church,  John  Wesley 
nevertheless  made  that  church  his  model,  desiring  to 
conform  to  it  as  much  as  possible  in  doctrine  and 
practice.  Even  after  their  separation  from  the 
Church  of  England  his  followers  never  constituted  a 
state  church  but  continued  to  defend  and  practice 
infant  baptism. 


CHAPTER   XVI 

THE  GREAT  CONTROVERSY   ON  BAPTISM 
AND  ITS  MEANING^^^ 

The  rejection  of  infant  baptism  and  insistence 
on  the  scriptural  baptism  of  believers  was  a  most 
fundamental  point  which  distinguished  the  so-called 
Anabaptists  from  the  state-churches.  Luther,  Zwing- 
li,  and  Calvin  did  not  question  the  validity  of  the 
Romish  baptism  and  ordination ;  they  undertook  to 
reform  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  in  this  task 
they  went  hand  in  hand  with  the  state.  If  infant 
baptism  was  unscriptural  and  invalid,  as  the  Ana- 
baptists believed,  the  Lutheran  and  Zwinglian  refor- 
mation of  the  Roman  Church  was  clearly  inadequate. 
If  the  sacraments  and  ordination  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  were  unacceptable,  a  mere  reformation  of  that 
church  along  lines  approved  by  the  civil  authorities 
was  insufficient;  a  regeneration  or  renewing  of  the 
church  along  New  Testament  Hues  was  in  order. 
The  restoration  of  Scriptural  baptism  was  in  fact  the 
most  fundamental  requirement  for  a  true  New  Testa- 
ment church. 

Before  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  move- 
ment   church    and    state    were   united.      The    leading 


120  INFANT  BAPTISM 

reformers  gave  their  consent  to  the  establishment  of 
a  similar  union  between  the  state  and  the  church. 
Not  only  in  Roman  Catholic,  but  also  in  Lutheran, 
Zwinglian,  and  Calvinistic  lands  the  membership  of 
the  church  was  supposed  to  be  identical  with  the 
population ;  every  inhabitant  (excepting  the  Jews) 
was  compelled  by  law  to  hold  membership  in  the 
state-church;  hence  infant  baptism  was  the  foremost 
requirement  in  the  Protestant  state  churches  as  wel^ 
as  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  people  were 
through  infant  baptism  made  members  of  the  church 
in  their  earliest  infancy.  Martin  Luther  made  this 
remarkable  statement:  'T  truly  believe,  if  [infant 
baptism  were  abandoned  and]  the  adults  and  those 
who  have  come  to  years  of  understanding  were  to  be 
baptized,  not  one  out  of  ten  would  apply  for  bap- 
tism." Exclusion  from  the  church  was  virtually  un- 
known in  Catholic,  Lutheran  and  Zwinglian  lands, 
except  in  the  instance  of  heretics  which  were  con- 
demned to  die.  Even  the  criminals  who  filled  the 
prisons  were  church  members. 

Of  the  inner  history,  the  real  meaning  and  the 
strength  of  the  great  Anabaptist  movement  it  may 
be  said  that  "the  half  has  not  been  told."^^^  There 
is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  in  various  lands 
the  new  state-churches  as  well  as  the  Roman  Church 
would  have  lost  the  fight,  had  Anabaptism  been 
tolerated  by  the  state.  Not  through  the  reformers' 
arguments  for  infant  baptism,  but  though  the  sword 
of    the    hangman    did    sate-churchism    triumph    over 


CONTROVERSY  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM       121 

Anabaptism.  The  history  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the 
Reformation  period  (including  in  certain  lands  the 
following  centuries)  is  a  story  of  heroic  suffering,  of 
martyrdom  without  parallel.  The  principle  of  faith- 
baptism  was  sealed  with  streams  of  the  blood  of  the 
martyrs ;  it  may  be  said  of  it  that  it  triumphed  in 
apparent  defeat. 

The  issue  of  believers'  baptism  or  infant  bap- 
tism was  one  which  primarily  concerned  the  character 
of  the  church  .and  the  conditions  of  membership  in  it. 
Shall  the  birth  of  Christian  parents  convey  the  right 
of  membership  in  the  church?  Shall  the  infants  be 
made  church  m.embers  without  their  knowledge  or 
consent,  or  shall  only  those  be  made  members  who 
accept  Christ  and  surrender  themselves  to  him?  Is 
regeneration  the  result  of  baptism,  or  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptsim  instituted  for  those  who  are  saved 
through  faith  in  Christ?  Shall  there  be  an  exclusive 
state-church  comprising,  by  virtue  of  the  strong  arm 
of  the  state,  the  whole  population,  or  shall  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christ  and  the  example  of  the  apostles  be 
followed?  Shall  the  boundary  lines  of  the  church  be 
identical  with  those  of  the  state?  Shall  "the  sword 
of  the  Spirit"  rule  in  the  church,  or  the  sword  of 
brutal  force?  Shall  the  Bible  or  the  hangman  be  the 
final  authority?  Shall  the  teachings  of  the  church  be 
based  on  God's  word,  or  is  the  word  of  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  authorities  an  acceptable  basis  for  the  faith 
and  practice  of  the  church  ?^^*  Is  it  the  mission  of 
the  church  to  lead  those  who  are  within  its  fold  to 


122  INFANT  BAPTISM 

accept  Christ,  or  is  the  church  a  body  of  believers 
whose  mission  field  is  the  world?  Shall  the  church 
and  the  world  be  united  or  separated?  Is  the  church 
essentially  a  hierarchy,  or  is  it  a  body  of  beHevers? 
These  are  the  questions  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of 
the  great  controversy  on  infant  baptism. 


NOTES 

ABBREVIATIONS 

Actensammlung:='Eg\i,    E.,    Actensammlung    zur    Geschichte 

der   Ziiricher  Reformation,   Zurich,   1879. 
Bdchtold=Die   Schaffhauser   Wiedertaufer   in   der   Reforma- 

tionszeit,  von  C.  A.  Bachtold,  in  Beitrage  zur  vater- 

landischen    Geschichte,    Part    7,    Schaffhausen,    1900. 
BoMrr=:Zwinglis  Theologie,  ihr  Werden  und  ihr  System,  von 

August  Baur,  Halle  1885-1899. 
5/aMr^r=:Briefwechsel   der   Bruder   Ambrosius   und   Thomas 

Blaurer,  ed.  by   Schiess,   Freiburg  i.   B.,   1908- 
Bullinger,    i?.-G.=:Reformationsgeschichte    Heinrich    Bulling- 

ers,  ed.   by   Hottinger  and  Vogeli,  Frauenfeld,   1838. 
Bullinger,  M^.=Der  Widertaufferen  Ursprung,  fiirgang^  Sec- 
ten,  etc.,  by  Heinrich  BulUnger,  Zurich,  1561. 
Corp.  Ref.::^Corpus  Reformatorum.    The  works  of  Melanch- 

thon,   ed.  by  Bretschneider,   Halle,   1834-1863. 
De    Wette^=.T>v.    Martin    Luthers    Briefe,    Sendschreiben    und 

Bedenken,  Berlin,  ed.  by  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette,  BerHn, 

1825-1828. 
£p/i=:Zwingli's    Works,    ed.    by    Egli,    Finsler    and    Kohler, 

Berlin,  1905- 
Enders-=L\xth.tr's  Briefwechsel,  ed.  by  Enders,  Frankfurt  a. 

M.,   1884- 
Erlangenz=The  Erlangen  edition  of  Luther's  writings  in  the 

German   language,   Erlangen,   1826-1868. 
Fussli=zBeytr3.ge     zur     Erlauterung     der     Kirchen-Reforma- 

tionsgeschichte  des  Schweitzerlandes,  by  J.  C.  Fiissli 

1741-1753. 


124  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Gesprech='Em  gesprech  Balthasar  Hubmors  von  Fridberg 
Doctors,  auf  Mayster  Ulrichs  Zwinglens  Tauffbuch, 
von  dem  Kindertauff,  Nicolspurg,  1526. 

Hagenbach= J ohann  Qikolampad  und  Oswald   Myconius,   die 
Reformatoren  Basels.  Elberfeld,  1859. 

Heberle=D[e  Anfange  des  Anabaptismus  in  der  Schweiz,  in 

Jahrbiicher   fiir  deutsche  Theologie,   1858. 
Her2og=:Dd.s  Leben  Johannes   CEkolampads  und   die   Refor- 
mation der  Kirche  zu  Basel ;    Basel,  1843. 
i/^rmmyar(i=:Correspondance  des  Reformateurs,  ed.  by  Her- 

minjard,  Geneva,   1866. 
/af^.yon=:Selected    Works    of    Huldreich    Zwingli,    ed.    by    S. 

M.  Jackson^   Philadelphia,   1901. 
Kdsflin=^l.uthers    Theologie    in    ihrer    geschichtlichen    Ent- 

wicklung   etc.,    Stuttgart,    1901. 
Loserth=::DoctoT   Balthasar   Hubmaier  und   die  Anfange   der 

Wiedertaufe     in      Mahren,     von     Johann     Loserth^ 

Briinn,  1893. 
Melanchthon=zlJnderncht   Philip.     Melancht.   wider  die  Lere 

der  Widerteuffer  auss  dem  latein  verdeutschet,  durch 

Just.  Jonas;    Wittemberg,  1528. 
(Ecol.,    Ioan.=zIn    Epistolam    loannis    Apostoli    Catholicam 

primam,    loannis    CEcolampadij    demegoriae,    Basel, 

1524. 
(Ecol,    f7«c?£'rr.=Underrichtung  von   dem  Widertauff    

auflf  Carlins  N.  widertauffers  artickel,  Basel,  1527. 
R.  £.=Herzog-Hauck,  Real-Enzyklopadie  fiir   Prot.  Theolo- 
gie und  Kirche. 
Sabbata=:Ktss\er,  J.,   Sabbata,   ed.   by   Egli   and   Schoch,   St. 

Gall,   1902. 
Schuler=:Zvf{ng\['s    Works    ed.    by    Schuler    and    Schulthess, 

Zurich,  1828-1842. 
5'faA^/m=:Huldreich  Zwingli.     Sein  Leben  und  Wirken  nach 

den    Quellen    dargestellt    von    Dr.    Rudolf    Stahelin, 

Basel,  1897. 


NOTES  125 

.Staub=:T)ie  Beziehungen  des  Taufers  Conrad  Grebel  zu  sei- 

nem  Schwager  Vadian,  Zurich    1895. 
St.  u.  i^r.=i:Theologische   Studien  und   Kritiken.     Zeitschrift 

fiir  das  gesamte  Gebiet  der  Theologie.  Gotha. 
C/j/^n=Darstellung  der  Tauflehre  Zwinglis,  by  J.  M.  Usteri, 

St.  u.  Kr.,  1882. 
yadian=zDie  Vadianische  Briefsammlung  der  Stadtbibliothek 

St.  Gallen,  ed.  by  Arbenz,   St.   Gall,   1890- 
.Walch=The  Walch  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  Halle,   1740- 

1753. 
Walch,  St.  L.=The   St.  Louis  reprint  of  the  Walch  edition 

of  Luther's  Works,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,   1880-1904. 
Wappler=zDie    Stellung    Kursachsens    und    des    Landgrafen 

Philipp   von   Hessen   zur  Tauferbewegung,   Munster, 

1910. 
W eimar  =:Th.e  Weimar  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  Weimar, 

1883- 

NOTES 

^  The  original  follows :  "Die  Tauif  ist  eyn  eusseriich 
zeychen  odder  lossung,  die  unss  absondert  von  alien  unge- 
-taufften  menschen,  das  wir  dar  bey  erkennet  werden  eyn 
volck  Christi  unssers  hertzogen,  under  wilchs  panier  wir 
stetiglich  streyten  widder  die  sund."  Luther's  Works,  Wei- 
mar, vol.  2,  p.  727. 

2  The  same,  vol,  2  pp.  736,  728,  732.  In  the  same  year 
Luther  published  a  sermon  on  the  Supper  in  which  he  de- 
fines the  meaning  of  this  ordinance  as  follows :  "Therefore 
this  sacrament  of  receiving  the  bread  and  wine  is  nothing 
else  than  to  receive  a  sure  sign  of  this  intercommunion 
and  incorporation  with  Christ  and  all  saints."  (Weimar, 
vol.  2,  p.  743).  He  says  further:  "Where  love  does  not 
daily  increase  and  change  man  that  he  becomes  a  servant 
of  all,  the  fruit  and  meaning  of  this  sacrament  is  absent." 
•(The  same,  p.  748). 


126  INFANT  BAPTISM 

3  Luther's   Works,    Weimar,  vol.   2,  p.   731. 
*  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  12,  p.   196. 

5  In  this  instance  and  others  where,  in  Scripture  quota- 
tions from  writers  of  the  Reformation  period,  the  chapter 
only  is  given  in  the  original  the  verse-numbers  have  been 
supplied.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  division  into  vers- 
es is  of  comparatively  recent  date. 

6  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  15,  pp.  1484  seq. 
This  passage  is  taken  from  the  little  book  Grund  und  Ur- 
sach  aller  Artikel,  so  verdammt  sind.  Compare  Erlangen, 
vol.  24,  pp.  53-150;    Weimar,  vol.  7,  pp.  308-457. 

"'  In  the  controversy  concerning  the  Supper  the  Zwing- 
lians  asserted,  not  without  ground,  that  Melanchthon  had 
formerly  believed  "there  was  in  the  Supper  nothing  but 
bread."  Compare  Luther's  Works,  Weimar,  vol.  23^  p.  279. 
Walch  St.  L.,  vol.  20,  p.  890.  Luther  from  the  beginning 
highly   recommended    Melanchthon's   Loci  Communes. 

^  Corp.  Ref.,  vol.  21 ;  Supplcmcnta  Mclanchthonia,  Leip- 
zig, 1910,  p.  186. 

9  "Unnd  so  er  sich  diser  mainung  taufifen  lest,  ists 
gleich  als  begriib  man  jn  schon.  Wo  nun  ein  solch  gemiit 
bey  der  Tauff  ist,"  etc.  Ain  gut  underricht  und  getrewer 
Ratschlag  ausz  hailiger  gotlicher  schrift,  wess  man  sich  in 
disen  zwitrachten  unnsern  hailigen  glauben  unnd  Christliche 
leer  betreffend  haltcn  soil.  1525.  (Library  of  Crozer  Theo- 
logical Seminary).  The  author  of  this  book  is  probably 
Andreas  Osiander. 

^0  This  book  was  published  in  the  Latin  language. 
The  article  on  baptism  containing  the  quotation  given  above 
was  reprinted  in  full  by  S.  Cramer  in  Doopsgezinde 
Bijdragen,  Leiden,  Netherlands^  1912,  p.  11.  Compare 
Fiissli,  vol.  2,  p.  68;  Ottius,  Annalcs  Anabaptistici,  Basel, 
1672,  p.  35 ;    also  the  pertinent  article  in  R.  E. 

^1  The  "Zwickau  Prophets,"  as  these  men  yere  later 
called,   were   not   Anabaptists,    although   they   questioned    the 


NOTES  127 

.  scripturalness  of  infant  baptism.  Neither  they  nor  their 
successor,  Thomas  Miinzer  practiced  adult  baptism.  Com- 
pare, Horsch^  J.,  Die  Stellimg  der  Schweiscr  Bruder  zu 
Thomas  Miinzer,  in  Der  Hilfshote,  (Kassel,  Germany), 
July,  1911.  After  the  rise  of  the  enthusiastic  Anabaptists 
some  of  their  teachings  were  erroneously  ascribed  to  the 
so-called  Zwickau   Prophets. 

12  Corp.  Ref.,  vol.   1,  p.  534. 

13  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1,  p.  239.  Quoted  by 
Menno  Simons,  folio  edition  of  his  works,  Amsterdam  1681, 
p.  272;  English  edition,  Elkhart,  Indiana,  1871,  part  2,  p. 
49;    compare  part  1,  p.  2>7. 

1*  Hubmaier  Gesprech,  fol.  D3b.  Zwingli,  in  his  reply 
to  this  book  of  Hubmaier,  mentions  the  conference  held 
"on  the  moat"  in  Zurich.  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2, 
part  1,  p.  350.  Hubmaier  visited  Zwingli  on  his  trip  from 
St.  Gall  where  he  had  preached  repeatedly  to  great  audienc- 
es. Ruckensberger  who  had  invited  him  to  St.  Gall  (Kessler, 
.  Sabbata,  p.  106)  accompanied  him  to  Zurich.  The  above 
passage  is  also  quoted  p.  83  of  the  present  book. 

15  "In  qua  [aqua  in  baptismo]  frustra  millies  etiam 
ablues  eum,  qui  non  credit."  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8, 
p.  85. 

16  "Eum,  qui  iam  credidisset,  aqua  tingi  iussit."  Zwing- 
li's Works,  Egli^  vol.  8,  p.  236. 

17  Usteri,  p.  208. 

18  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  394.  "And 
you  have  openly  confessed"  writes  Hubmaier  in  his  Ge- 
sprech, "that  those  who  baptize  infants  have  no  clear  Scrip- 
ture which  demands  that  they  should  be  baptized."  (Fol. 
D3b). 

1^  Zwingli,  in  the  first  part  of   this  quotation,   uses   the 
impersonal   pronoun   man,   but   it   is    clear   from   the   context 
^hat  he  speaks  of  himself. 

20  Zwingli's   Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2    part   1,  p.   245. 


128  INFANT  BAPTISM 

21  Hubmaier,  Gesprech,  fol.  D3a. 

22  Staub,  p.  75. 

28  Egli,  Actensatnmlung,  No.  655. 

2*  Keller-Escher,  C,  Die  Familie  Grehel,  Zurich,  1886.. 
(Grebel-Chronik) , 

25  Baur^  vol.  2,  p.  56. 
2«  t/^f^Tt;  p.  263. 

27  Hadorn,  W.,  Kirchengeschichte  der  reformierten 
Schweiz,  Zurich,  1907,  p.  68. 

28  Stauh,  p.  52.  Compare  Heherle,  p.  244.  Stahelin,  the 
author  of  the  most  thorough  and  comprehensive  biography- 
of  ZwingH,  also  confirms  the  fact  that  the  reformer  ex- 
pressed himself  unfavorably  on  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism.    (Vol.  1,  p.  474). 

29  Beck,  J.  Die  Geschichtsbucher  der  Wiedertdufer  in 
CEsterreich-Ungarn,  Wien,   1883,  p.   15. 

**>  CEcolampad  says :  "Dominus  autem  Marci  ultimo 
dicens:  Qui  crediderit  et  baptizatus  fuerit,  baptismi  nomine 
ad  confessionem  nos  urget,  et  perfectam  fidem  a  nobis 
exigit.  Nam  qui  baptizari  non  vult,  is  etiam  Christum  con- 
fiteri  non  vult."  In  Epistolam  B.  Pauli  Apost.  ad  Rhomanos 
Adnotationes  etc.,  Basel,  1526,  p.  48^.  The  first  edition  of 
this  book  v^as  printed  in  1524. 

SI  Hagenbach,  p.  72;  Usteri^  J.  M.,  CEkolampads  Stel- 
lung  zur  Kindertaufe,  in  St.  u.  Kr.,  1883,  p.  155. 

32  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  252. 

23  For  Hubmaier's  letter  see  Mau,  W.,  Balthasar  Hub- 
maier, Berlin,  1912,  p.  83. 

8*  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler^  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  340.  The 
complete  letter  in  Epistolae  CEcol.  et  Zwinglii,  1536,  fol.  64 
seq. 

*5  Herminjard,  vol.  2,  p.  335. 

**  In  his  tract  Was  man  halt  en  und  antworten  soil  von 
der  Spaltung  zwischen  Martin  Luther  und  Andreas  Carl- 
stadt,   reprinted   in   Luther's   Works,    Walch,   St.   L.   vol.   20., 


NOTES  129 

The  quoted  sentences  are  found  on  pp.  350,  351.  Compare 
also  Usteri,  J.  M.,  Die  Stellung  der  Strassburger  Refor- 
matoren  Bucer  und  Capita  zur  Tauffrage,  in  St.  ii.  Kr., 
1884,  pp.  456-525. 

37  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  280. 

38  In  his  book  Grund  und  Ursach  der  Neuerungen  etc.,. 
reprinted  in  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  20.  The 
cited  sentences  are  found  pp.  405,  407,  422. 

39  Enders,  vol.  5,  p.  59  seq. 

^0  "Er  hielt  die  Kindertaufe  mit  ihnen  fiir  einen  Miss- 
brauch."  Pressel,  Joachim  Vadian,  Elberfeld  1861,  p.  48; 
Cornelius,  C.  A.,  Geschichfe  des  Miinsterischen  Anfruhrs, 
vol.  2,  Leipzig,  1860,  p.  Z7. 

*i  Vadian,  vol.  3,  p.  116. 

42  Staub,  p.  55. 

43  Bdchtold,  p.  92. 

44  Loserth,  p.  205. 

45  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  441. 

46  Miinzer  was  not  an  Anabaptist;  he  practiced  infant 
baptism,  although  he  questioned  its  scripturalness.  The 
earnest  efforts  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptist  leaders  (who  evi- 
dently were  not  fully  acquainted  with  his  teachings)  to 
persuade  him  to  abandon  infant  baptism  proved  fruitless. 
Compare   Der   Hilfsbote.      (Kassel,    Germany),    July    1911. 

47  Keller,  L.,  Die  Reformation  und  die  dlteren  Reform- 
parteien,  Leipzig,  1884,  p.  374. 

48  l^adian,  vol.  3,  p.  28. 

49  Blaurer,  vol.   1,  p.  94. 

50  Staub,  p.  39.  It  was  in  May,  1525,  that  Hubmaier 
testified,  he  believed  "some  years  ago"  {vor  etwas  jaren) 
that  infant  baptism  ought  to  be  abandoned.  (Compare  p. 
21).  "As  early  as  the  spring  of  1523  Hubmaier  thought  of 
rejecting  infant  baptism,"  says  his  latest  biographer. 
(Sachsse,    C,    Doctor    Balthasar    Hubmaier    als    Theologe, 


130  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Berlin,  1914,  p.  158).     This  is  clear  from  his  conference  with 
Zwingli,  in  May,  1523.     (P.  000). 

51  Egli,  E.,  Schweizerische  Reformationsgeschichte,  vol. 
Ij  Zurich,  1910,  p.  266.  Especially  at  Strasburg  the  number 
of  unbaptized  children  of  Zwinglian  parents  was  great,  as 
we  know  from  Bucers  letters  to  the  Blaurer  brothers. 
Compare  Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie,  1860,  p.  79. 
In  Ulm  the  Council  decided  in  August,  1528,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  need  not  be  administered  by  a  minister  or  in 
a  church  building,  but  every  one  should  be  permitted  to 
baptize  his  own  child  as  seemed  best  to  him.  This  decision 
gave  those  who  disapproved  infant  baptism  the  opportunity 
to  omit  the  rite.  (Keim,  C.  T.,  Die  Reformation  der  Reichs- 
stadt  Ulm,  Stuttgart,  1851,  p.  120).  Caspar  Schwenckfeld 
wrote  on  September  24,  1531 :  "If  all  those  are  Anabaptists 
who  do  not  favor  infant  baptism,  then  there  are  now  Ana- 
baptists everywhere."  (Schwenckfeld^  Epistolar,  vol.  2,  part 
2,  p.  296). 

52  Egli,   Actcnsammlung ,   No.   213. 

53  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  28,  pp.  41-53. 

54  "Quod  ergo  non  est  contra  scripturam,  pro  scriptura 
est  et  scriptura  pro  ea."    Rndcrs,  vol.  3,  p.  276. 

55  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  22,  pp.  43-59;  Wei- 
mar,^ vol.  8,  pp.  676-688. 

56  At  the  time  when  the  few  men  who  were  the  first 
to  doubt  the  scripturalness  of  infant  baptism  in  Saxony 
and  who  refused  to  follow  in  Luther's  footsteps,  had 
disappeared  from  the  scene.  The  Anabaptist  movement 
began  at  a  later  date. 

^"  This  passage  is  found  in  the  second  chapter  of  the 
book.  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen^  vol.  22,  p.  59  seq. ;  IVei- 
tiiar,  vol.  11,  p.  229  seq. 

5s  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  26,  p.  269;  Weimar, 
vol.  26,  p.  155. 


NOTES  131 

69  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  29,  p.  188;  Walch, 
St.  L.,  vol.  20,  p.   183. 

60  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  29,  p.  150;  Walch, 
St.  L.,  vol.  20,  p.  147. 

^1  To  what  extreme  length  Luther  went  in  the  de- 
fence of  Roman  Catholic  usages  against  Carlstadt  is 
shown  in  the  following  sentence.  He  says:  "It  is  clear 
that  even  in  the  Old  Testament  the  unobjectionable  idols 
(Abgotter)  did  not  bring  harm,  even  if  men  prayed  be- 
fore them,  if  only  with  the  heart  the  true  God  was  wor- 
shipped; and  our  fanatics  would  bind  and  entangle  us 
free  Christians  to  such  extent  that  we  may  not  tolerate 
idols    (Gotzen)    without  sin."     Erlangen,  vol.  29,  p.   154. 

«2  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  29,  p.  210.  The 
fact  that  Luther,  after  the  period  of  "the  great  reforma- 
tory testimony,"  partly  retraced  his  steps  as  concerned 
his  position  on  the  question  of  Scripture  authority,  has 
been  generally  ignored  in  pertinent  works.  O.  Scheel 
(Luthers  Stellung  zur  heiligen  Schrift^  Tiibingen,  1902, 
p.  ZZ)  says  rightfully  that  shortly  after  the  Leipzig  dis- 
putation (July,  1519)  he  defended  the  doctrine  "that  the 
Scriptures  only  and  solely  are  the  authority,"  but  he 
adds  (without  warrant)  that  the  reformer  consequently 
never  modified  his  views  on  this  point.  (Compare  the 
following   chapter). 

63  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1,  pp.  127,  130,  145, 
146. 

6*  The  same,  vol.  1,  p.  419. 

65  In  the  Defence,  by  Grebel,  printed  in  Zwingli's 
Works,  Egli,  vol.  3,  pp.  368-372,  and  Staub,  pp.  71-76. 

66  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1,  p.  281.  Compare 
the  testimony  of  Heberle,  that  the  Anabaptists  "rightfully 
accused  Zwingli  of  apostacy  from  his  former  position." 
Heberle^  p.  280. 


132  INFANT  BAPTISM 

67  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  26,  p.  258;  Weimar, 
vol.  26,  p.  147. 

68  "Semper  expectavi  Satanam,  ut  hoc  ulcus  tangeret, 
sed  noluit  per  papistas.  In  nobis  ipsis  molitur  hoc  gravissi- 
mum  schisma."  The  letter  is  printed  in  Enders,  vol.  3,  pp. 
272-277;  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  vol.  15,  appendix,  p.  103 
seq. 

69  Kostlin^  vol.  1,  p.  295. 

■^0  Luther's  later  writings  show  conclusively  that  he  re- 
tained to  the  end  of  his  life  this  opinion  concerning  the 
faith  of  the  infants.  Compare  Kostlin,  vol.  2,  p.  237.  In 
his  Greater  Catechism  he  makes  a  statement  seemingly  ap- 
proving the  baptism  of  infants  even  if  they  had  no  faith. 
His  point  is,  in  this  instance,  that  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism to  infants  would  be  a  duty,  even  if  the  (supposed) 
effect  were  made  void  through  the  possible  absence  of  faith. 
To  illustrate  his  point,  he  says,  a  Jew  or  a  heathen  who  pro- 
fesses faith  in  Christ,  is  validly  baptized,  even  if  his  con- 
fession be  hypocritical.  In  the  same  work  he  defends  the 
opinion  that  infants  have  faith.  "Without  faith,"  he  says, 
^'baptism  is  but  an  inefficient  sign." 

71  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  20,  pp.  1723,  1719. 

72  The   same,  vol.  2,  p.   1904;  Erlangen,  vol.   11,   p.   147. 

73  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  11,  p.  488;  Er- 
langen, vol.  11,  p.  64. 

74  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  11,  p.  490;  Erlangen,  vol.  11,  p.  62. 

75  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  26,  pp.  255-297;  Wei- 
mar, vol.  26,  pp.  144-174.  The  editor  of  this  book  of  Luther, 
as  published  in  the  Weimar  edition  of  his  works,  says 
(p.  140),  that  in  Hubmaier's  book  On  the  Christian  Baptism 
of  Believers  is  found  the  reply  to  nearly  all  arguments  ad- 
vanced by   Luther  in   his  book   On   Anabaptistn. 

76  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol'.  26,  p.  279;  Weimar, 
vol.  26j  p.  163. 


NOTES  133 

7''  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  26,  p.  268;  Weimar, 
vol.  26,  p.  155. 

'^^  Luther's  Works,  Erlangen,  vol.  26,  p.  258;  Weimar, 
vol.  26,  p.  147.     Compare  note  193. 

■^9  "Sprichstu :  Solchs  schleust  noch  nichts,  das  der  kin- 
der tauffe  gewis  sey,  Denn  es  ist  kein  spruch  aus  der 
schrifft.  Antwort :  Das  ist  war,  es  schleust  nicht  starck  ge- 
nug  mit  spruchen  das  du  kinder  tauffe  darauf  mochtest 
anfahen  bey  den  ersten  nach  den  Aposteln^  Aber  es  schleust 
gleich  wol  so  viel  das  itzt  bei  unser  zeit  niemand  mit  gutem 
gewissen  thar  der  kinder  tauffe,  so  lange  her  bracht,  ver- 
werffen  odder  fallen  lassen."  Luther's  Works,  Weimar,  vol. 
26,  p.  167. 

80  Luther's  Works,  Weimar,  vol.  26,  p.  166. 

81  Melanchthon,  fol.  B3b.  He  continues :  "Und  da  er 
drewet  den  unbeschnitnen,  zeyget  er  an,  das  er  die  unbe- 
schnitnen  nicht  wolle  annemen,  das  allso  die  beschneydung 
fiir  ain  warhafftig  gewisz  zeychen  gotlicher  hulde  und  gnade 
gehalten  werde."  In  the  revised  edition  of  the  Underricht 
Melanchthon  erroneously  quotes  the  sentence  "I  will  be 
their  God"  (Gen,  17:8)  as  a  part  of  the  commandment  to 
circumcise,  and  then  says :  "Here  God  shows  that  he  will 
be  gracious  to  those  whom  he  commands  to  circumcise^  and 
ordaines  to  circumcise  the  little  children."  Walch,  St.  L., 
vol.  20,  p.  1737. 

82  Luther's  Works,   Weimar,  vol.  26,  p.  165. 

83  Schlatter,  Das  christliche  Dogma,  Stuttgart,  1911,  p. 
463.  Says  The  Reformed  Church  Messenger,  February  4, 
1915,  p.  4:  "When  children  take  sick  and  die  the  father  and 
mother  find  great  comfort  and  consolation  in  the  fact  that 
they  had  been  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus." 

84  After  the  birth  of  a  daughter  in  Luther's  family^  he 
wrote  to  a  friend  asking  her  to  "stand  godmother"  for  the 
child :  "God  has  given  me  a  poor  young  heathen,  and  I  ask 
you  that  you  will  render  your  service,  that  she  may  through 


134  INFANT  BAPTISM 

your  help  be  brought  from  the  old  birth  of  Adam  to  the 
new  birth  of  Christ  through  holy  baptism."  De  Wette,  vol. 
3,  p.  448. 

85  "If  the  baptismal  water  were  the  water  of  life,"  says 
Caspar  Schwenckfeld,  "it  were  well  that  we  often  be  bap- 
tized." Roth,  Augsburgs  Reformationsgeschichte,  vol.  4, 
p.  62. 

86  Melanchthon,  fol.  B4. 

87  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  20,  p.  1734  seq. 

88  Compare  Wappler,  p.  51. 

89  The  Reply  to  Colman  Rorer  was  never  printed,  but 
was  preserved  in  manuscript. 

90  Menno  Simons'  Complete  Works,  Elkhart,  Indiana, 
1871,  vol.  1,  p.  30. 

91  Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L.,  vol.  20,  p.  1762. 

92  On  Menius'  arguments  compare   Wappler,  p.  22. 

93  Tschackert,  P.,  Die  Entstehung  der  lutherischen  und 
reformierten   Kirchenlehre,   Gottingen,    1910,    p.    171. 

94  It  was  Zwingli's  decision  upon  a  union  of  church  and 
state  which  caused  the  great  division  among  the  reform 
friends  of  Switzerland.  His  best  friends  seceded  from  the 
state-church  party  and  founded  the  church  of  the  Swiss 
Brethren. 

95  Usteri,  p.  212. 

96  Zwingli's  own  words  are  as  follows:  "Ouch  nit,  dasz 
mir  an  der  kinder  touf  so  vil  gelegen  sye  ....  Und  wo  ich 
hierus  empfunde  schmach  gottes  erwachsen  oder  nachteil 
dhristlichem  leben,  lage  mir  niits  daran,  dass  ich  min  mei- 
nung  andren  sollte."  ZwingH's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part 
1,  p.  395. 

97  Zwingli's   Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  page  284. 

98  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  301. 

99  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  392. 

100  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  298. 


NOTES  135 

101  Grebel's  Defence  is  reprinted  in  Zwingli's  Works, 
Eglij  vol.  3,  pp.  368-372;    Staub,  pp.  71-76. 

102  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  pp.  301,  370. 

103  Bulling cr^  R.-G.,  vol.  1,  p.  238. 

104  Egli,  Actensammlung ,  No.   622. 

105  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  295. 
Morikofer  (Bilder  aus  dem  kirctilichen  Lehen  der  Schweiz, 
Leipzig,  1864,  p.  150)  says  correctly,  that  Zwingli,  in  his 
first  great  debate  with  the  Romanists,  could  be  sure  of  the 
Council's  decision  in  his  favor.  The  same  is  true  of  fiis 
debates  with  the  Anabaptists.  , 

106  "Meintend  ouch,  es  ware  nit  fiiglich  sunder  gfarHch, 
wo  wir  mit  jnen  wyter  solltind  gesprach  halten."  Zwingli's 
Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  232. 

107  Bdchtold,  p.  82. 

108  Bullinger^  R.-G.,  vol.  1,  p.  295;  Bullinger,  W.,  fol.  10. 

109  Fiissli,  vol.  1,  p.  285. 

110  The  same,  vol.  2,  p.  358  and  vol.   1,  p.  280. 

111  Bullinger  says  expressly  {Bullinger,  R.-G.,  vol.  1,  p. 
296)  that  the  reason  why  the  discussions  were  held  in  this 
church  was  because  the  city  hall  proved  too  small  for  the 
occasion.  The  insinuation  that  in  the  city  hall  the  Ana- 
baptists could  not  be  kept  under  proper  restraint  is  not 
worthy  of  consideration  though  it  has  been  repeated  by  a 
number  of  modern  writers. 

112  Egli,  Actensammlung,   No.   863. 

113  "Wenn  sy  werdent  mitt  ir  trannung  fiirfaren,  werde 
man  sy  uffs  hertist  straaffen."  Bullinger,  R.-G.,  vol.  1.  p. 
296.  It  ought  to  be  no  longer  denied  that  the  Anabaptists 
were  persecuted  in  Zurich  on  account  of  the  principles  for 
which  they  stood,  and  not  on  account  of  their  supposed 
"turbulent  and  insurrectionary  spirit,"  as  is  asserted  in  Life 
of  Ulrich  Zwingli,  by  S.  Simpson,  New  York,  1902,  p.  155. 
In  the  following  year  baptism,  as  practiced  by  the  Anabap- 
tists, was  forbidden  on  penalty  of  death. 


136  INFANT  BAPTISM 

11*  Egli,  Actensammlung,  No.  862;  Fiissli,  vol.  3,  p.  203. 

115  "Danii  sie  sind  gewohnet  zu  reden  nur  was  sie  wol- 
len,  und  nit  was  sie  sollen."  Bullinger^  H.,  Von  dem  un- 
verschampten  Frdfel,  etc.,  1531,  p.  117a.  Not  only  in  the 
debates  but  also  in  their  sermons  the  Anabaptists,  according 
to  Zwingli's  assertion  "said  only  what  they  desired,  and  not 
what  they  should  say."  Zwingli  makes  the  following  naive 
complaint :  "Secondly,  in  their  sermons  on  baptism,  ad- 
dressed to  the  unlearned,  they  failed  to  present  the  argu- 
ments for  infant  baptism  which  were  laid  before  them  at 
Zurich"  (Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  307). 
And  again :  "They  can  not  deny  that,  in  their  labors  in  the 
country,  they  did  not  set  forth  our  opinion  on  baptism" 
(together  with  their  defence  of  believers'  baptism).  Zwing- 
li's Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2^  part  1,  p.  276. 

11*^  Prayer  to  the  saints  was  abolished  by  the  new  state- 
church  a  number  of  years  later.  See  Morikofer,  J.  C, 
Ulrich  Zwingli,  Leipzig,  1869,  vol.  2,  p.  54. 

117  Verwerffen  der  Articklen  und  stucken,  so  die  Wider- 
touffer  uff  dem  gesprdch  su  Benin  fUrgewendt  haben  etc. 
Zurich,  1528. 

118  The  complete  title  is.  Of  Baptism,  Anabaptism  and 
Infant  Baptism.     Works^  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  pp.  230-303. 

119  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  pp.  337-369. 

120  The  same,  vol.   3,  pp.   357-437;  Jackson,  pp.   123-258. 

121  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  314.  Zwingli  re- 
peatedly complained  that  the  Anabaptists  advanced  only 
their  own  arguments  against  infant  baptism  without  pre- 
senting his  arguments  to  the  contrary.  (Compare  Note  115) 
But  he  himself  was  slow  to  publish  his   own  arguments. 

122  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  243. 

123  The  same,  vol.  8,  p.  248. 

124  The  same,  vol.  8,  p.  252. 

125  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  8,  p.  49.  Compare 
Usteri,  J.   M.,  Zwingli's  Correspondent  mit  den  Berner  Re- 


NOTES  137 

formatoren  Haller  und  Kolb  iiber  die   Tauffrage,  in  St.   u. 
Kr.,  1882,  pp.  616-618. 

126  Kessler,  Sahhata,  p.   149. 

127  "Der  touf  ist  ein  pflichtig  zeichen,  das  den,  der  jn 
nimmt,  anzeigt,  dass  er  sin  leben  bessren  und  Christo  nach- 
folgen  welle."  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p. 
246. 

128  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  239. 

129  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  253.  It  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  later  Protestant  defenders  of  infant  baptism  as 
well  as  Zwingli,  have  given  definitions  which  from  their  own 
point  of  view  seem  strikingly  unsatisfactory.  A  writer  in 
The  Reformed  Church  Review  (January,  1916)  for  example, 
concludes  an  article  on  this  subject  as  follows:  "Our  con- 
clusion of  the  whole  matter  is  that  Christian  baptism  is  the 
divinely  appointed  visible  holy  sign  and  seal  by  which  Christ 
assures  us  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

130  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  261. 

131  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  236. 

132  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  page  301. 

133  The  same,  vol.  2^  part  1,  pp.  274-276, 

134  BuUinger,  W.,  p.  203. 

135  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  394. 

136  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  284. 

137  The  same,  vol.  2^  part  1,  p.  247. 

138  Concerning  the  translation  of  this  verse  compare 
Blasz,  Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Griechisch,  1902, 
p.  202,  and  Beck,  Ethik,  vol.  1,  p.  330  seq.  For  passages  of 
similar  construction  see  Acts  18 :23 ;  14 :21  seq. ;  21 :2,  3 ;  Eph. 
6:17,18. 

139  It  is  to  be  clearly  inferred  that  Crispus'  household, 
having  believed,  was  also  baptized,  though  it  is  not  expressly 
stated  (Acts  18:8);  hence  the  number  of  households  men- 
tioned in  this  way  is  five. 


138  INFANT  BAPTISM 

140  Complete   Works   of  Menno   Simons,  vol.   1,   p.   36. 

141  It  is  an'  interesting  fact  that  Zwingli  developed  his 
teaching  on  predestination  in  his  controversy  with  the  Ana- 
baptists. Compare  Lang,  A.,  Zwingli  und  Calvin,  Leipzig, 
1913,  p.  61. 

142  Jackson,  p.  24L 

143  The  same,  p.  245. 

144  Compare  Vedder,  H.  C,  Balthasar  Hiibmaicr,  the 
Leader  of  the  Anabaptists,  New  York,  1905. 

145  Vadian  vol.  3,  p.  128.  Conrad  Grebel  made  a  sim- 
ilar statement  regarding  Zwingli's  influence  over  himself. 
Actensammlung ,  No.  797. 

146  Zwingli's   Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  254,  Note  3. 

147  The  same,  vol.  8,  p.  254.  On  January  16,  1525  Hub- 
maier  says  in  a  letter  to  GEcolampad  that  he  had  repeatedly 
written  to  Zwingli.  (Mau,  W.,  Balthasar  Hubmaier,  Berlin, 
1912,  p.  81).  The  said  letter  to  CEcolampad  gives  Hub- 
maier's  ground  against  infant  baptism;  it  was  copied  and 
sent  to  Zwingli  by  CEcolampad  (Sachsse,  C,  Balthasar  Hub- 
maier als  Theologe,  Berlin,  1914,  p.  147). 

148  Vadian,  vol.  3,  p.  104. 

149  Vedder,  B.  Hiibmaier,  p.  109. 

150  Zwingli's  insinuation  that  Hubmaier  became  his  op- 
ponent from  selfish,  sinister  motives  has  been  accepted  by 
many  writers.  The  impartial  student  will  on  the  contrary 
assent  to  Alfred  Hegler's  opinion  who  says:  "No  unbiased 
historian  today  will  assert  that  Hubmaier  united  with  the 
Anabaptists  from  morally  unjustifiable  motives.  It  is  im- 
possible to  deny  his  earnest  striving  for  the  truth."  (Article 
Hubmaier,  in  R.  E.) 

151  Zwingli  says:  "I  shall  not  now  speak  of  the  unwise 
thing  that  you  have  laid  down  your  office  of  a  priest,  de- 
siring to  be  chosen  by  those  alone  who  had  been  baptized." 
ZwingH's  Works,  Schuler^  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  345. 

152  The    whole    letter    is    printed    by    Loserth,    p.    203. 


NOTES  139 

From  a  statement  made  by  Hubmaier  as  a  prisoner  in 
Zurich  it  would  appear  that  he  also  wrote  to  Zwingli  sug- 
gesting a  discussion.      (Loserth,  p.  205). 

153  Zwingli's  Works,   Schuler,  vol.  7,  p.  441. 

154  The  same,  vol.  8,  p.  85 ;  compare  Hagenbach,  p.  109. 

155  CEcoI.,  Underr.,  fol.  A2b. 

156  Zwingli's  Works,   Schuler^  vol.  2,  part   1,  p.   345. 
15'''  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  344. 

158  Vadian,  vol.  3,  p.  127. 

159  Kessler,  Sabbata,  p.  151. 

160  See  preface  to   Gesprech. 

161  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  7,  p.  534  seq. ;  Baur, 
vol.  2,  p.  170  seq. ;  Jackson  S.  M.,  Huldreich  Zwingli,  New 
York,  1903,  p.  252  seq. 

162  The  Anabaptists  were  severely  persecuted  in  Zurich. 
On  March  5,  1526,  the  Council  (with  Zwingli's  consent,  as 
is  evident  from  his  letter  to  Vadian,  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli, 
vol.  8,  p.  542)  decided  that  the  persistent  Anabaptists  should 
be  cast  into  a  dungeon  and  there  "be  left  to  die  and  rot." 
(Actensammlung,  No.  934). 

163  Usteri,  p.  283. 

164  Beitrdge  sur  Geschichte  der  Schweiscrischen  Refor- 
mations-KircJien,  Bern^   1884,  p.  440. 

165  "Aber  schliesslich  kann  er  sie  doch  nur  retten  als 
Konzession  an  die  menschliche  Schwache  und  geschichtliche 
Entwicklung."     Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  3,  p.  364. 

166  Usteri,  p.  263 ;  Glider's  article  is  found  in  R.  E., 
first  edition. 

167  E.  g.  Eissenloffel,   L.,  Frans  Kolb,  1893,  p.  59. 

168  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part   1^  p.  367. 

169  Blaurer,  vol.  1,  p.  423;  Pestalozzi,  C,  Leo  Judd, 
Elberfeld,  1860,  p.  45. 

170  Loserth,  p.  13. 

171  R.  E.,  vol.  8,  p.  421. 

172  Loserth     J.,    Wiedertdufer    in    Steiermark,    in    Mit- 


140  INFANT  BAPTISM 

ieilungcn  des  historischen  Vereins  fiir  Steiermark,  1894,  p. 
119. 

173  Gesprech,  fol.  A4a  and  A4b. 

17*  This  little  book,  containing  72  pages,  was  printed  at 
Nicolsburg  in  Moravia,  in  1526.  The  supposition  that  in  this 
dialogue  Hubmaier  himself  made  up  the  sentences  which  he 
ascribed  to  his  opponent  and  that  therefore  this  book  can 
hardly  be  taken  seriousl}^  is  quite  unfounded.  The  sayings 
of  Zwingli,  as  here  given,  are  taken  literally  from  his  Book 
on  Baptism.  The  number  of  the  page  on  which  the  quota- 
tion ma}^  be  found  in  Zwingli's  Works,  edited  by  Schuler 
and  Schulthess  (vol.  2^  part  1)  has  been  added  in  every  in- 
stance in  the  present  book.  Zwingli  dfd  not  publish  a  reply 
to  this  book  of   Hubmaier. 

175  In  the  first  debate  of  Zurich,  held  on  January  29, 
1523,  John  Fabri  the  vicar-general  of  the  bishop  of  Con- 
stance was  Zwingli's  principal  opponent,  defending  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrines  and  practices. 

176  Zv/ingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1,  p.  209. 

177  The  same,  vol.  1,  p.  153;  Jackson,  p.  110.  Urban 
Wyss,  the  priest  of  Fislibach,  a  village  of  Baden,  preached 
evangelical  doctrine  and  was  in  consequence  arrested  and 
brought  to  Constance.  In  the  said  debate  at  Zurich  John 
Fabri  declared  that  he  had  convinced  Wyss  from  the 
Scriptures   of   the   orthodoxy  of   the   Roman    Catholic   creed. 

178  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1  p.  146.  In  Selected 
Works  of  Hnldreich  Zwingli  the  translation  of  this  passage 
is  inaccurate. 

179  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  1,  p.  145 ;  Jackson,  p. 
96. 

180  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  239. 

181  The  same,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  394. 

182  "Ein  anheblich  zeichen." 

183  In  some  of  the  Oriental  churches  infant  communion^ 
or  a  substitute  for  it,  is  practiced. 


NOTES  141 

184  It  may  seem  almost  unbelievable  that  Zwingli  made 
use  of  this  argument;  but  he  is  quoted  correctly.  The 
original  is  as  follows:  "Warum  underscheidend  jr  den 
menschen?  Sind  kinder  lut  oder  nit?  Sind  sy  menschen 
oder  liit,  so  miissend  jr  sy  ouch  lassen  toufen."  Zwingli's 
Works,  S chiller,  vol.  2,  part  1,  p.  281. 

185  This  suggestion  for  a  public  debate  is  evidence  that 
Hubmaier,  even  then,  had  not  given  up  hope  that  Zwingli 
would  change  his  attitude  on  the  question  of  baptism. 

186  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  8,  pp.  84,  86.  Com- 
pare Hagenbach,  p.  190;  Stdhelin^  vol.  1,  p.  491;  Baum, 
J.  W.,  Capito  und  Butser,  Elberfeld,  1860,  p.  381. 

187  Herminjard,  vol.    1,  p.   335. 

188  CEcol,  Underr.,  fol.  B3.     Compare  for  Bb. 

189  Usteri,  J.  M.,  (Ekolampads  Stellung  zur  Kindertaufe, 
St.  u.  Kr.,  1883,  p.   163. 

190  CEcol,   Underr.,  fol.  Dl  seq. 

191  CEcolampad,  J.,  Ain  Gesprdch  etlicher  Predicanten 
zu  Basel  mit  etUchen  Bekennern  des  Wydertaiiffs,  1525,  fol. 
A4a.  In  1526  exorcism  was  discontinued  in  some  of  the 
churches  of  Basel. 

192  "This  annuls  all  relation  to  the  infant  itself,"  says 
Herzog  (p.  312). 

193  The  same  argument  was  advanced  by  Luther  against 
the  Zwinglian  view  of  the  Lord's  supper.  Luther  wrote  in 
1532  to  Duke  Albert  of  Prussia:  "If  we  had  nothing  more 
[no  Scripture  proof],  this  testimony  of  the  whole  holy 
Christian  church  should  be  sufficient  for  us,  to  abide  by  this 
article  [of  the  supper]  and  to  hear  no  dissenter  on  this 
point,  nor  tolerate  them."  (Luther's  Works,  Walch,  St.  L., 
vol.  20,  p.  1684).  In  Luther's  opinion  the  Zwinglians  as  well 
as  the  Anabaptists  were  outside  of  the  pale  of  the  Christian 
church,  hence  he  could  say,  all  Christendom  agreed  with 
him. 

19*  On   CEcolampad's  position  on  the  question  of  infant 


142  INFANT  BAPTISM 

baptism,  compare:  Ain  Gesprdch  etlicher  Predicanten  zu 
Basel  mit  etlichen  Bekennern  des  Wydertauffs,  1525 ;  Un- 
derichtung  von  dem  Widertauff,  1527;  Antwort  auff  Bal- 
thasar  Hubmeier's  hiichlein,  1527. 

1^5  Hansen,  E.,  Geschichte  der  Konfirmation  in  Schles- 
ivig-Holstein,  Kiel,  1911,  p.  75. 

196  Anrich^   G.,   Martin   Bucer,   Strasburg,   1914,   p.   Z7. 

'^^'^  Caspari,  W.,  Die  evang.  Konfirmation,  Erlangen, 
1890;  Diehl,  W.,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Konfirmation,  Giessen, 
1897;  Hansen,  E.,  Geschichte  der  Konfirmation  in  Schles- 
wig-Holstein,  Kiel,  1911.  Bucer  said:  "Since  at  the  present 
time  the  usage  prevails  that  people  are  baptized  in  infancy 
and  can  not  confess  the  faith  when  baptism  is  administered 
to  them,"  the  oral  confession  in  connection  with  Confirma- 
tion is  necessary.     Hansen    p.  89. 

198  Newman,  A.  H.,  A  History  of  Anti-Pedohaptism, 
Philadelphia,  1897,  pp.  240,  247;  Hulshof,  A.,  Geschiedenis 
van  dc  Doopsgezinden  te  Straatshurg,  Amsterdam,  1905,  p. 
61-80. 

199  Usteri,  p.  263. 

200  Zwingli's  Works,  Egli^  vol.  8,  p.  375. 
•201  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.   8,  p.  84. 

■202  /^{jj  Gesprdch  etlicher  Predicanten  su  Basel  mit 
etlichen  Bekennern  des  Wydertauffs,  fol.  A2b  and  B5t>. 
Compare  Hagenbach,  p.  116. 

203  Antwort  auff  Balthasar  Hubmeiers  buchlein  etc., 
Basel,  1527,  fol.  K4;    compare  fol.  N5. 

20*  Lang,  A.,  EvangeUen-Kommentar  Martin  Butzers 
und  die  Grundziige  seiner  Theologie,  Leipzig,  1900  p.  130; 
Gerbert  C,  Geschichte  der  Strassburger  Sectenbewegung  zur 
Zeit  der  Reformation,  Strasburg,  1889,  p.   100. 

205  (EcoL,  loan,  fol.  66b. 

206  Hagenbach,  pp.  64,  210. 

207  Herzog,  vol.  1,  p.  353  seq. 


NOTES  143 

208  The  same,  vol.  1^  p.  291.  Even  if  OEcolampad  said 
mass   "in   appearance   only^"   the   offence   was   none   the   less. 

209  The  same,  vol.  1,  p.  242. 

210  Luther  advised  the  priests  who  favored  his  doctrine 
to  say  mass  "in  appearance,"  omitting  the  words  which  refer 
to  the  sacrifice.  The  people  would  not  notice  this  since  mass 
was  said  in  the  Latin  language  and  the  words  in  question 
were  not  uttered  audibly.  But  this  would  not  do  away  with 
the  offence,  since  the  congregation  was  left  under  the  im- 
pression that  their  minister  did  that  which  he  believed  to  be 
an  abomination.  Compare  Horsch,  J.,  Menno  Simons,  Scott- 
dale,  Pa.,  1916,  p.  27. 

211  Herminjard,  vol.  1,  p.  335.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact 
that  Imler  finally  laid  down  his  office  as  a  priest  and  became 
a  weaver.     Zwingli's  Works,  Egli,  vol.  8,  p.  315. 

212  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler,  vol.  8,  p.   102. 

213  Zwingli  also  held  that  Roman  Catholic  worship  and 
practice  could  be  accepted  as  long  as  love  did  not  demand 
its  abolishment.     Compare  Blaurer,  vol.   1,  p.   158. 

21*  Herzog,  vol.   1,  p.   195;    compare  Hagenhach,  p.   192. 

215  Compare  Zwingli's  Works,  Schuler^  vol.  2,  part  1,  p. 
238. 

216  Jackson,  p.  246. 

217  Compare  Horsch,  J.,  Der  Grundsats  von  der  Scho- 
nung  der  Schwachen  in  der  staatskirchlichen  Reformation, 
in  Deutsch-Amerik.  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theologie  und  Kirche 
(Berea,  Ohio),  vol.  32,  No.  2. 

218  Cornelius,  C.  A.,  Geschichte  des  Miinsterischen  Auf- 
ruhrs,  Leipzig,   1855^  vol.  2,  p.  247. 

219  In  his  book  Ob  man  gemach  faren  soil  ("Whether 
one  should  go  slowly,"  viz.  in  abandoning  the  false  wor- 
ship).    Reprinted  in  Fiissli,  vol.   1,  pp.  57-142. 

220  Handlung     oder    Acta     gehaliner     Disputation     und 


144  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Gesprdch    zu    Zoffingen    im    Bernner    Biet    mit    den    Wider- 
t  duff  em,  1532,  fol.  6. 

221  The  letter  is  printed  by  Rohrich  in  Zeitschr.  f.  hist. 
Theol.,  1860,  p.  31  seq. 

222  This  book  was  printed  at  Nicolsburg,  in  1527.  In 
the  same  year  CEcolampad  wrote  a  Reply  to  Balthasar  Huh- 
maier's  Little  Book  Against  the  Discussions  of  the  Preach- 
ers of  Basel  Concerning  Infant  Baptism.  In  the  Introduc- 
tion he  says  that  Hubmaier  had  sent  him  a  written  reply  to 
his  report  of  the  discussions  held  at  Basel;  "but  since  you 
did  not  give  it  out  in  print,  I  did  nothing  further,"  CEco- 
lampad continues.  In  all  probability  Hubmaier  found  no 
printer  for  his  Reply  until  he  came  to   Nicolsburg. 

223  The  letter  and  number  after  each  quotation  from 
CEcolampad  refers  to  the  page  on  which  it  may  be  found 
in  his  bookj  printed  at  Augsburg,  by  Silvan  Otmar,  probably 

in  1525. 

224  In  his  homilies  on  the  first  Epistle  of  John  which 
-were  held  in  1523  and  published  the  following  year,  CEco- 
lampad says  of  the  Roman  Catholic  party :  "We  teach  new 
things,  they  say.  I  ask  them  to  tell  us  what  new  things  we 
teach,  since  we  would  accept  nothing  but  what  can  be  sub- 
stantiated by  Scripture.  How  shameful  is  their  attitude ! 
Could  Christians  be  so  degenerated  that  they  abhor  the 
teaching  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  as  a  new  thing  of 
recent  date  ?"  And  again :  "Can  it  be  that  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  is  considered  so  absolete  that  it  is  supposed  to  be  a 
new  thing?"     (Ecol,  loan.,  fol.  2b  and  30b. 

225  The  last  clause  of  this  quotation  is  not  in  the 
original ;    the  sense  is  clearly  as  here  given,  however. 

226  The  numbers  given  after  each  paragraph  in  this 
chapter  refer  to  Menno  Simons*  Works.  In  the  first  in- 
stance the  reference  is  to  page  19,  Folio  Edition  of  Menno 
Simons'   Works,  printed  in   1681   and  to  part   1,   page  34  of 


NOTES  145 

the  English  Complete  Works  of  Menno  Simons,  Elkhart, 
Ind.,  1871. 

227  This  paragraph  is  taken  from  Dirk  Philips'  book  On 
Baptism;  Bibliotheca  Reformatoria  Neerlandica,  vol.  10: 
De  Geschriften  van  Dirk  Philipss,  The  Hague,  1914,  p.  76; 
Philips,  D.,  Handbook  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  and  Reli- 
gion, Elkhart,  Ind.,  1910,  p.  27. 

228  At  Utrecht  in  Holland  there  occurred  in  1830  a  di- 
vision among  Calvinists  on  the  question  whether  infants  of 
unbelieving  parents  may  be  baptized. 

229  por  a  statement  of  Calvin's  doctrine  of  baptism 
compare  McGlothlin,  W.  J.,  Infant  Baptism  Historically 
Considered,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  1916,  pp.  96-99. 

230  Herminjard,    vol.    2,    p.    48:     " hujusque    gratia 

coram  Christiana  plebe  intingi  aqua  velle,  ut  palam  protes- 
tetur,  quod  corde  credit,  ut  fratribus  carior  sit  et  Christo 
magis  hac  solemni  adstrictus  professione,  quod  majusculis 
ad  nos  ab  impiis  confugientibus  fieret,  singula  si  recte  dis- 
pensarentur,  ut  magnus  ille  coepit  Joannes  ac  omnium 
maximus  praecepit  Christus."  Farel  adds :  "We  should  not 
however,  forbid  the  little  ones,  as  some  have  wished,"  show- 
ing that  he  hesitated  to  abandon  infant  baptism.  His  atti- 
tude on  this  question  before  the  beginning  of  the  Anabaptist 
movement  is  an  important  point  for  further  investigation. 

231  John  Wesley's  surprising  position  on  infant  baptism 
is  set  forth  in  McGlothlin,  Infant  Baptism,  pp.   105-106. 

232  A  part  of  this  chapter  was  published  in  Menno 
Simons,  his  Life,  Labors  and  Teachings. 

233  A  competent  study  of  the  great  movement  for  faith- 
baptism  in  the  sixteenth  century  is  not  possible  so  long  as 
much  of  the  most  essential  source  material  is  permitted  to 
lay  buried  in  the  archives  of  Europe.  While  the  important 
sources  for  the  history  of  the  state-churches  have  been 
brought  to   light   and   made   available   for  the   student,   but 


146  INFANT  BAPTISM 

little  has  been  done  along  this  line  for  Anabaptist  history. 
This  is  without  doubt  the  principal  reason  why  glaring  mis- 
representation of  "Anabaptism"  and  its  history  has  con- 
tinued to  this  day. 

234  Compare  note  62. 


DICTIONARY 

Anabaptists.  —  The  word  (German,  Wiedertdufer) 
means  rehaptizers.  The  Anabaptists  were  a  powerful 
religious  party  of  the  Reformation  period  which  stood 
for  the  rejection  of  human  authority  in  miatters  of  faith, 
for  believers'  baptism  and  the  Voluntary  Principle. 

Augustine.  (354-430).  Bishop  of  Hippo  in  North 
Africa.     The  greatest  of  the  so-called  church-fathers. 

Basel    (Basle).     A   canton  and   city  of  Switzerland. 

Bern.  Next  to  Zurich  the  largest  canton  of  the 
Swiss   Confederacy,  with   city  of  Bern  as  capital. 

Blaurer,  Ambrosius.  (1492-1564).  Reformer  of  Con- 
stance. 

Blaurock,  Georg.  One  of  the  founders  of  the  first 
church  of  the  Swiss  Brethren  in  Zurich.  He  was  burned 
^t  the  stake  at   Clausen   in  Tirol,   in   1529. 

Bucer,  Martin.  (1491-1551).  The  most  noteworthy 
-of   the   German   state-church   reformers,   besides   Luther. 

BulUnger,  Henry.  (1504-1575).  Zwingli's  successor 
at  Zurich  and  for  many  years  the  most  prominent 
Zwinglian  leader. 

Canton.  One  of  the  independent  states  which  form 
the  Swiss  confederacy. 

Capito,  Wolfgang.  (1478-1541).  Zwinglian  reformer 
in  Strasburg. 

Cappel.     Town   in   the   canton   Zurich. 

Carlstadt,  Andreas.  ( 1480- 1 541).  At  first  Luther's 
coworker  in  Wittenberg,  and  later  his  opponent.  Luth- 
er's acceptance  of  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the  sacraments 
as  means  for  regeneration  and  forgiveness  of  sin  was 
offensive   to  him.     He  died  as  professor  in  Basel. 

Constance.     City  in   South   Germany. 

Council.  Each  state  of  the  Swiss  confederacy  was 
governed   by  a    Council. 

Diet.  The  administrative  assembly  of  the  old  Ger- 
man Empire,  consisting  of  representatives  of  the  various 
provinces  and  free  cities. 


148  INFANT  BAPTISM 

Farel,  William.  (1489-1565).  A  leader  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic    reformation.      Calvin's    predecessor    at    Geneva. 

Flacians.  The  followers  of  Matthias  Flacius,  the 
most   radical   Lutheran  leader  in   the   sixteenth   century. 

Geneva.  A  city  in  French  Switzerland;  for  many 
years  the  Scene  of  John  Calvin's  labors  and  the  center 
of  the   Calvinistic   Reformation. 

Grebel,  Conrad.  The  most  distinguished  of  a  group 
of  men  who  founded  the  first  congregation  of  the  Swiss 
Brethren  at  Zurich,  in  1525.  He  died  in  prison  at 
Maienfeld,  in   1526. 

Griiningen.  A  principality  in  the  canton  of  Zurich 
in  Switzerland. 

Hadorn,  William.  Professor  of  Theology  at  the 
university  of  Bern.  Author  of  a  few  works  on  church 
history. 

Haller,  Berthold.  (1492-1536).  The  most  prominent 
of  the  Zwinglian   reformers   of  Bern. 

Hegler,  Alfred.  Professor  of  Protestant  theology  at 
Tubingen,  One  of  the  most  reliable  writers  on  Anabap- 
tist history. 

Hierarchy.  A  body  of  ecclesiastical  rulers;  the 
Roman  priesthood. 

Hofmeister,  Sebastian.  The  Zwinglian  reformer  of 
Schaffhausen. 

Host.  The  wafer  used  instead  of  the  bread  in  mass 
as  well  as  in  the  communion  service  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  The  host  is  believed  to  be  Christ 
himself  and  hence  is  worshiped.  The  elevation  of  the 
host  is  a  feature  of  mass,  the  host  being  held  up  and 
presented  before  the  congregation  which  worships  it  in 
kneeling  posture. 

Hubmaier,  Balthasar.  A  leader  among  the  Anabap- 
tists in  South  Germany  and  Moravia  and  the  most  dis- 
tinguished defender  of  believers'  baptism  and  Anabaptist 
principles  in  general.  He  was  burned  at  the  stake  at  or 
near  Vienna  in   1528. 

Huterite  Brethren.  Anabaptists  of  Moravia,  named 
after  Jacob  Huter  who  was  burned  at  the  stake  at  Inns- 
bruck in  Tyrol,  in   1536. 

Jena.     Town  in   Saxony. 

Jud,  Leo.  (1482-1542).  A  noted  coworker  with 
Zwingli  at  Zurich. 


DICTIONARY  149 

Kessler,  John.  (i  503-1 574)-  Famous  Zwinglian 
chronicler  of  St.  Gall. 

Kohler,  Walter.  Successor  to  Emil  Egli  as  church 
historian  at  Zurich.  One  of  the  editors  of  the  new  edi- 
tion  of  Zwingli's   works. 

Kostlin,  Julius.  (1826-1902).  Well  known  Lutheran 
historian  in  Germany. 

Kiissnach.     Town  in  the  canton  of  Zurich. 

Loserth,  Johann.  Distinguished  Protestant  church 
historian  of  Austria.     Professor  in  the  university  of  Graz. 

Mantz,  Felix.  One  of  the  founders  of  the  first  Swiss 
Brethren  congregation  in  Zurich.  He  suffered  martyr- 
dom by  drowning  in  Zurich,  in   1527- 

Mass.  One  of  the  chief  corner  stones  of  Romanism. 
In  Roman  Catholic  teaching  mass  is  the  daily  repetition 
of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  every  sanctuary.  The  bread, 
or  host,  in  the  Lord's  supper  is  supposed  to  be  Christ 
himself  who  is  daily  offered  anew  by  the  priests  to 
atone  for  sin.  It  should  be  observed  that  if  this  doctrine 
were  scriptural,  there  could  be  no  objection  against  a 
literal  priesthood,  altars,  sacerdotal  vestments,  ritualism 
etc.  To  say  that  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  insufficient 
to  atone  for  sin  and  must  be  repeated  by  Christian 
priests,  is  to  dishonor  Christ.  All  the  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth    century    denounced    mass    as    blasphemous. 

Melanchthon,  Philip,  (1497- 1560).  Luther's  most  dis- 
tinguished helper  in  the  task  of  the  church  reformation. 
Professor   in    Wittenberg. 

Menius,  Justus.  (1499-1558).  The  reformer  of  Thurin- 
gia.  He  wrote  a  number  of  books  against  the  Ana- 
baptists. 

Menno  Simons.  (1496-1561).  Anabaptist  leader  after 
whom  the  Mennonites  are  named,  though  he  was  not 
the  founder  of  a  sect. 

Moravia.      Province   of  Austria,   east  of  Bohemia. 

Miinzer,  Thomas,  (c.  1489-1525).  An  enthusiast  and 
radical  reformer  in  Saxony;  leader  of  the  Saxon  rebels 
in  the  Peasants'  War  of  1525. 

Myconius,  Oswald.  (1488-1552).  Zwinglian  reformer 
at  Zurich  and  Basel. 

Nordlingen.     City  in   Swabia. 

Nuremberg.  One  of  the  principal  cities  in  South 
Germany. 


150  INFANT  BAPTISM 

CEcolampad,  John.  (1482-1531).  Besides  Zwingli 
the  most  prominent  contemporary  state-church  reformer 
of  Switzerland.     The  leading  theologian  at   Basel. 

Papists.  Those  who  recognize  the  claims  of  the 
Pope. 

Philips,  Dirk.  (ca.  1504-1568).  An  Anabaptist  leader 
and   the  most  prominent   colaborer   with   Menno   Simons. 

Protestants.  In  1529,  at  the  Diet  of  Speier,  the  Luth- 
eran and  Zwinglian  Estates  protested  against  a  plan 
which  was  designed  eventually  to  suppress  the  Reforma- 
tion, hence  they  were  called  Protestants  and  this  desig- 
nation has  become  the  usual  name  of  Christian  pro- 
fessors not  belonging  to  the  Roman  Catholic  or  to  one 
of  the   Eastern  churches. 

Purgatory.  —  Supposed  to  be,  in  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic creed,  a  place  in  which  souls  who  do  not  merit 
damnation    are  purified   after   death. 

Reformed  Church.  In  certain  countries  the  follow- 
ers of  Ulrich  Zwingli  and  John  Calvin  are  known  as  the 
Reformed,  while  in  other  countries  they  are  called 
Presbyterians.  In  America  the  Reformed  and  Presby- 
terians are   distinct  denominations. 

Rhegius,  Urban.  (1490-1541).  Lutheran  reformer  at 
Augsburg   in   Swabia   and   Luneburg. 

Sacrament  in  both  kinds.  In  the  Roman  Church  the 
cup  is  witheld  from  the  laity  under  the  pretext  that  the 
bread  or  host  is  the  body  of  the  Lord  and  that  the  body 
is  not  bloodless,  hence  the  blood  is  given  although  the 
cup  is  withheld.  The  expression  "both  kinds"  refers  to 
the  cup  and  bread. 

Saint  Gall.  In  the  earlier  Reformation  period  one 
of  the  principal  cities  of  Switzerland,  and  as  such  a 
member  of  the  Swiss  Confederacy. 

Saints.  In  the  language  of  Scripture  the  believers 
are  the  saints.  In  Roman  Catholic  theology  the  saints 
are  those  who  have  been  canonized  or  declared  holy  by 
the  pope  and  to  whom  prayer  is  to  be  offered. 

Sattler,  Michael.  One  of  the  great  Anabaptist  lead- 
ers. He  suffered  martyrdom  in  1527,  at  Rottenburg  on 
the   Neckar,   after   terrible   torture. 

Schaffhausen.  City  belonging  to  the  Swiss  Con- 
federacy, 

Schlatter,  Adolf.  A  prominent  Protestant  theologian 
of  Germany.     Professor  in  Tubingen. 


DICTIONARY  151 

Schwenckfeld,  Caspar.  (1490-1561).  He  is  consid- 
ered the  founder  of  the  Schwenckfelder  Church,  although 
he  did  not  desire  to  found  a  church.  His  followers 
organized    themselves    after   his    death. 

Sikkingen,  Francis  von.  (1481-1523).  A  knight  who 
offered  his  castle,  the  Ebernburg  near  Worms  on  the 
Rhine,   as   a   retreat   to   Luther. 

Silesia.     A   province   in   North   East   Germany. 

Spalatin,  George.  (1484-1545).  Friend  of  Luther, 
statesman    and    reformer   in    Saxony. 

Strasburg.  A  city  on  the  upper  Rhine,  The  capital 
of  Alsace. 

Swabia.     X)istrict   in    South    Germany. 

Swiss  Brethren.  The  great  Anabaptist  party  of 
Switzerland    and    South    Germany. 

Tubingen.  The  university  town  of  the  kingdom 
of   Wurttemberg    in    South    Germany. 

Waldshut  (walds-hoot).  Town  in  South  Germany, 
near  the  Swiss  border.  Here  Hubmaier  labored  and 
embraced   "Anabaptism." 

Wartburg.  A  castle  in  Thuringia,  where  Luther, 
complying  with  the  desires  of  the  civil  authorities  of 
Saxony,  kept  himself  in   secret,  in   1521. 

Wittenberg.  City  in  Saxony.  The  center  of  the 
Lutheran  Reformation.  Both  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
were  professors  in  the  university  at  this  place. 

Wyttenbach,  Thomas.  (1472-1526).  Friend  of  Zwing- 
li  and  reformer  at  Biel  in  Switzerland. 

Zofingen.  Town  in  the  canton  Bern  in  Switzer- 
land, where  in  1532  an  important  discussion  was  held 
between   the   Zwinglian   theologians    and  the   Anabaptists. 

Zollicon.  Village  near  the  city  of  Zurich,  where 
the  Anabaptists  were  numerous. 

Zurich.  The  most  powerful  canton  of  Switzerland 
with  capital  city  of  like  name.  The  city  of  Zurich  was 
the  scene  of  Zwingli's  labors  and  the  center  of  the 
Zwinglian  reformation.  Zurich  was  governed  by  the 
Council    consisting   of   over   two   hundred   members. 

Zwickau.     A  city  in  Saxony. 

Zwingli,  Ulrich  (Huldreich).  (1484-1531).  With 
John  Calvin  the  founder  of  the  Reformed  and  Presby- 
terian churches.  Calvin  differed  however,  on  important 
doctrinal  points   from  his   predecessor  Zwingli. 


INDEX 


*    * 


Altars,   34 

Anrich,  94 

Apostolic  church,  9 

Augustine,    18,   23,   44, 
108,  115 

Authority,    Roman    Cath- 
olic  teaching   on,   9 

Bachtold,   54 
Baptismal    commission, 

meaning  of,  65,  66 
Baptism    of    households, 

66 
Basel,   23-27,   61,  92,  93, 

97,  98-101,  104 
Baur,  22 
Bavaria,    90 

Bern,  26,  58,  61,  92,  99 
Billican,   16 
Binder,   74 
Blaurer,  note  51 
Blaurock,   58 
Bremgarten,   20 


Bucer,  24-26,  61,  94,  95, 

97,  102,  note  51 
Bullinger,  52,  55,  57,  58, 

63 
Burgauer,  27 

Calcutta,  63 

Calvin,  John,  10,  63,  116, 
119 

Capito,  24,  61,  77,  95 

Carlstadt,  23,  32,  33,  101, 
102,  note  61 

Carthage,  council  of,  16, 
106 

Cassel,   57 

Catechumens,  19 

Christening,    34 

Chrysostom,   106 

Church  and  state,  rela- 
tion of,  29,  31,  32,  119- 
122,  note  94 

Church,  authority  of,  29- 
37 


154  INDEX 

Church-fathers,  34  Hadorn,   22 

Circumcision,   15,  42,  43,  Haller,   26,   61,    7Z,   99 

63,  112,  113  Hassenkamp,  94 

Cloisters,   88  Heberle,  note  66 

Confirmation,   19,  20,  94,  Hegler,  77,  note  150 

95  Hesse,   94 

Constance,  34,  80,  ^7,  100  Hierarchy,   122 

Cyprian,   106,   107,   108  Hofmann,  28 

\  Hofmeister,  26,  57,  75 

Ebernburg,    100  g^^^  ^^f^^'  1^4 

Elevation  o£  the  host,  2>Z  2°^^:  ^^      ^. 

England,   Church  of,   118  ^ottinger,   21 

Exorcism,   34,  92,  93  ^^.^'^^.'^^' i^'  ?J.'3  ^^' 

54,    58,   60,   69-90,   96, 

102,   104-110 

Fabri,  34,  2>6,  80,  81,  83,  Hubmaier's  Dialogue  with 

87  Zwingli,  79-90 

Faith    of    mfants,    39-41,  Hubmaier's  Discussion  on 

46-48,   113,  note  70  /n/aw^   Baptism,    104 

Farel,  24,  91,  98,  117  Hubmaier's  motives,  note 
Fislibach,  80  150 

Flacians,  46  Hubmaier's     On     Believ- 
ers'   Baptism,    58,    60, 
Gellius,    112  71,    73,    76,    96,     102, 

Geneva,   117  108,  note  75 

Germany,   10  Hubmaier's      Open     Ap- 
Godfathers,    14  peal,   70 

Grebel,  21,  22,  26,  36,  51,  Hugwald,  27 

52,  58,  70,  71,  102,  note  Huterites,  46 

145  J 

Grebel's  Defence,  51,  note  Imler,  98 

65  Infant    communion,   87 

Griiningen,    56  Infants,    unbaptized,    sal- 
Giider,   75  vation   of,   43,   44,   46- 

Gynoraus,   74  48,    111 


INDEX 


155 


Invocation  of  the  saints, 
34 

Jesuits,  64 
Jews,  120 
Joner,  57 
Jud,  55,  75,  77 
Jupiter,  98 

Kessler,  61,   74 
Klingnau,  20 
Kohler,  75 
Kolb,  99 
Kostlin,    39,   40 
Kiissnach,  57 

Leipzig  disputation,  note 
62 

Liberty  of  conscience,  29, 
2>7,  47 

Liegnitz,   17 

Lindauer,  20 

Loserth,  77 

Luther,  9,  10,  13-15,  18, 
25,  30-34,  38-48,  94, 
101,  102,  113,  119,  120, 
note  193 

Luther's  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity of  the  Church,  14 

Luther's  earher  teaching 
on  the   Supper,  note  2 

Luther's  Faithful  Admo- 
nition, 31 

Luther's  Greater  Cate- 
chism, note  70 


Luther's,  Of  Worldly 
Government,    32 

Luther's,  On  Anabap- 
tism,  33,  37,  41,  42, 
note  75 

Luther's  Sermon  on  Bap- 
tism,  13 

Luther's  Smaller  Cate- 
chism, 44 

Mantz,  22,  52,  58,  102 

Mass,  30,  97,  98,  99,  107, 
114 

]Mass  observed  "in  ap- 
pearance," note  210 

A.Ielanchthon,  15,  17,  30, 
2>2,  38,  39,  40,  42,  44, 
45,  48,  94 

^Melanchthon's     earlier 
teaching    on    the    Sup- 
per, note   7 

Melanchthon's  Ins^truction 
Against  Anabaptism, 
44,  45 

Melanchthon's  Loci  Com- 
munes,   15 

Melanchthon's  Refutation 
of  Anabaptist  Articles, 
40 

Menius,  48 

Menno   Simons,  48,   110 

Moravia,  note   174 

Moravian  ^Anabaptists,  22 

Miinzer,  23,  27,  note  11, 
46 

Mvconius,   55 


156 


INDEX 


Nicolsburg,  note  174,  222     Regensburg,  90 


Nippold,  75 
Nordlingen,   16 
Nuremberg,   15 

CEcolampad,     23-28,     61, 

73,  91-93,  96-102,  104- 

110,  note  147 
CEcolampad's    Exposition 

of  the  First  Epistle  of 

John,  97 
CEcolampad's    Exposition 

of  Romans,  23 
CEcolampad's    Instruction 

Concerning   Anabap- 

tism,  73 
Origen,   108,   115 
Osiander,   16 

! 
Pelagians,  106 
Persecution,    37,    45,    47, 

89,  90,    121,   note   113, 

162 
Philips,  note  227 
Pictures,  adoration  of,  33 
Pietists,  41 
Pope,  the,  9 

Prayer  to  the  saints,  116 
Predestination,    67 
Priesthood,  30 
Priestly  garments,   34 
Purgatory,  88 

Regeneration,     baptismal, 
10 


Rhegius,   27 
Rorer,  46 

Roublin,  27,  52,  71 
Ruckensberger,    20 

Saint  Gall,  20,  26,  27,  54, 

57,  61,  70 
Salt,  giving  of,  93 
Sattler,  58,   102,   103 
Saxony,  38 
Schaffliausen,  26,  54,  55, 

57,  69 
Schlatter,  43 
Schmidt,  57,   58 
Schwenckfeld,     94,     note 

51,  85 
Scripture  authority,  29-37 
Sikkingen,   100 
Silesia,   17 
Sleupner,   16 
Spalatin,   17 
State-churchism,    11,    29, 

31,  32,  Z7,  49,  50,  97- 

102,  119-121 
Staub,  26,  27 
Strasburg,  24-27,  61,  73, 

77,  94,   102,   108,   note 

51 
Supper  controversy,  note 

193 
Swabia,  16 
Swiss     Anabaptists,     50, 

51,  52 
Swiss    Brethren,   note   94 


INDEX 


157 


Switzerland,  10,  27,  60, 
73 

Tapers,  93 
Tertullian,   108 
Thuringia,  48 
Tradition,  30,  Z7 ,  38,  39 
Tschackert,   48 

Ulm,  note  51 

Uncertainty  in  the  de- 
fence of  infant  bap- 
tism, 48 

Usteri,  20,  22,  51,  75,  76, 
96 

Vadian,    26,    57,    60,    70, 

note  162 
Venatorius,    16 
Venus,  98 
Voluntary    Principle,    10, 

31,  35,  117 

Waldshut,  69,  70,  71,  74 
Wartburg,  30,  38 
Water,  holy,   114 
Wesley,   117,   118 


Wittenberg,   17,   33,   101 
Wyss,  note  177 
Wyttenbach,   20 

Zofingen,    102 

ZoUicon,  27 

Zurich,  20,  21,  28,  34,  49, 
52,  53-58,  60,  69,  70- 
78,  80,  83,  87,  90 

Zurich,  first  disputation 
of,  34 

Zwick,  100 

Zwickau,  17 

"Zwickau  Prophets,"  note 
11 

ZwingH,  9-11,  19-24,  26, 
27,  28,  34-37,  49-91, 
96,  99-101,   116,   119 

Zwingli's  Book  on  Bap- 
tism, 19,  22,  51,  53,  54, 
60,  61,  71,  79,  note,  174 

Zwingli's  Exposition  of 
the  Articles,  19 

Zwingli's  Refutation  of 
Anabaptist  Tricks,  60, 
67 


Date  Due 


wnijwmwvu^i^'z 


m^fT^'^^ 


m  2  5  '53 

MY  b-> 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01021   3736 


